Volume 11, Issue 43 (12-2004)
RJMS 2004, 11(43): 711-716 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Afshar Moghaddam N, Mahzooni P, Barakatein Z. Comparison of Reactive Mesothelial and Metastatic Adenocarcinoma Cells in Conventional and CEA Monoclonal Antibody Staining. RJMS 2004; 11 (43) :711-716
URL: http://rjms.iums.ac.ir/article-1-64-en.html
URL: http://rjms.iums.ac.ir/article-1-64-en.html
Abstract: (13263 Views)
Distinction between reactive mesothelial and metastatic adenocarcinoma cells in serous fluids is very important and sometimes very difficult. CEA, which is a tumor marker, is positive in 50 to 80% of metastatic adenocarcinoma and negative in reactive mesothelial cells. In the present study, 85 samples of body serous fluid were selected and then referred to laboratory of Alzahra Hospital in Isfahan. Cell blocks were prepared from samples. Hematoxylin-Eosin and immunohistochemical staining with CEA monoclonal antibody was then performed. In simple morphology, negative, positive and suspicious samples were respectively 68.2%, 21.2% and 10.6%. In immunohistochemical staining with CEA monoclonal antibody, 94.8% of previous negative results in simple morphology was negative and 5.2% was positive. Of positive and suspicious samples, positive CEA results were 44.4% and 50%, respectively. According to this study, in samples that Hematoxylin-Eosin stain is negative and positive, immunohistochemical staining is not needed, because this method is expensive and not helpful in these samples and, therefore, is recommended for suspicious cases.
Keywords: Key Words: 1) Reactive Mesothelial Cells
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
