Suppr超能文献

[比较中国和日本专家对间皮瘤的病理诊断结果]

[Comparing the results of pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma between Chinese and Japanese experts].

作者信息

Lou Jianlin, Gao Zhibin, Jiang Zhaoqiang, Chen Junqiang, Chen Riping, Zhang Xing

机构信息

Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences, Hangzhou 310013, China.

E-mail:

出版信息

Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2015 Jan;33(1):33-6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of pathological diagnosis of 41 patients with malignant mesothelioma between Chinese and Japanese experts, and to provide a basis for the standard for diagnosis of mesothelioma.

METHODS

The medical information and tissue samples of 41 patients with malignant mesothelioma were collected in a hospital in Zhejiang Province from 2003 to 2010. The expression levels of calretinin, Wilms' tumor suppressor gene (WT1), podoplanin (D2-40), cytokeratins (CK5/6, AE1/AE3, and CAM5.2), epithelial membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, BerEP4, MOC31, thyroid transcription factor-1, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor in tumor tissues were measured using immunohistochemical staining by Japanese experts, and the pathological classification and diagnosis were made. The results of diagnosis, pathological classification, immunohistochemical marker selection, and slide review were compared between Chinese and Japanese experts.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (70.7%) cases were diagnosed as mesothelioma by Japanese experts, among whom 12 (41.4%) cases were pleura mesothelioma, and 17 (58.6%) cases were peritoneal mesothelioma. Ten (24.4%) cases were confirmed without mesothelioma, and 2 (4.9%) cases were not confirmed due to insufficient information. Thirty-two (78.0%) cases were diagnosed as mesothelioma by Chinese experts, among whom 8 (25.0%) cases were pleura mesothelioma, and 24 (75.0%) cases were peritoneal mesothelioma. One (2.4%) case was confirmed without mesothelioma, and 8 (19.5%) cases were not confirmed. There were significant differences in the results of diagnosis between Chinese and Japanese experts. However, their pathological classifications of mesothelioma were similar. Significant differences in immunohistochemical marker selection and slide review were also found between Chinese and Japanese experts.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic skills of those pathological experts in this hospital remain to be further improved for mesothelioma diagnosis. A panel of immunohistochemical markers including at least 2 mesothelioma-positive and 2 mesothelioma-negative markers are recommended for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.

摘要

目的

比较中日专家对41例恶性间皮瘤患者的病理诊断结果,为间皮瘤诊断标准提供依据。

方法

收集2003年至2010年浙江省某医院41例恶性间皮瘤患者的医学信息和组织样本。日本专家采用免疫组织化学染色法检测肿瘤组织中钙视网膜蛋白、威尔姆斯肿瘤抑制基因(WT1)、足板蛋白(D2-40)、细胞角蛋白(CK5/6、AE1/AE3和CAM5.2)、上皮膜抗原、癌胚抗原、BerEP4、MOC31、甲状腺转录因子-1、雌激素受体和孕激素受体的表达水平,并进行病理分类和诊断。比较中日专家的诊断结果、病理分类、免疫组化标志物选择及玻片复查情况。

结果

日本专家诊断为间皮瘤29例(70.7%),其中胸膜间皮瘤12例(41.4%),腹膜间皮瘤17例(58.6%)。10例(24.4%)确诊无间皮瘤,2例(4.9%)因信息不足未确诊。中国专家诊断为间皮瘤32例(78.0%),其中胸膜间皮瘤8例(25.0%),腹膜间皮瘤24例(75.0%)。1例(2.4%)确诊无间皮瘤,8例(19.5%)未确诊。中日专家诊断结果存在显著差异。然而,他们对间皮瘤的病理分类相似。中日专家在免疫组化标志物选择及玻片复查方面也存在显著差异。

结论

该医院病理专家对间皮瘤的诊断技能仍有待进一步提高。建议采用一组至少包含2种间皮瘤阳性和2种间皮瘤阴性标志物的免疫组化标志物来诊断恶性间皮瘤。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验