Explore the vast range of titles available.

Context .—Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective .—To provide updated practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. Data Sources .—Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with an interest in the field contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. Conclusions .—There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinction of benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiation of epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. It is recommended that immunohistochemical markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist.

Context. —Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective. —To develop practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. Data Sources. —A pathology panel was convened at the International Mesothelioma Interest Group biennial meeting (October 2006). Pathologists with an interest in the field also contributed after the meeting. Conclusions. —There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the differential diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group recommends that markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer in the United States, accounting for approximately 29 percent of deaths from cancer and 6 percent of all deaths. 1 New approaches are essential to prevent lung cancer in persons who have smoked cigarettes or who have had occupational exposure to asbestos. Twenty-nine percent of men and 25 percent of women who are 45 to 64 years of age currently smoke, 2 and at least 40 percent of men and 20 percent of women in this age group are former smokers. 3 An estimated 4000 to 6000 deaths from lung cancer per year . . .

Context.—The development of successful chemotherapeutic agents directed against the Kit receptor tyrosine kinase protein has generated intense interest in the Kit (CD117) immunoreactivity of various neoplasms. Immunoreactivity for Kit in small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) has been well established. However, data on Kit immunostaining in other lung tumors is limited. Likewise, while solitary fibrous tumors of the gastrointestinal tract have been examined for Kit expression, the Kit staining characteristics of their counterpart in the pleura, namely, localized fibrous tumor, are not well known. Objective.—To characterize the Kit immunohistochemical profiles of major types of lung and pleural tumors. Design.—We stained 60 lung carcinomas, including 11 SCLCs, 4 large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas, 22 squamous cell carcinomas, 23 adenocarcinomas, 11 pulmonary carcinoid tumors, 19 pleural malignant mesotheliomas, and 6 localized pleural fibrous tumors with a commonly used polyclonal Kit antibody. Results.—Small cell lung carcinomas demonstrated Kit staining in 82% of cases, nearly all of which demonstrated moderate to intense immunoreactivity. Immunostaining was observed in 25% of large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas. Focal staining was observed in 9% of squamous cell carcinomas and 17% of adenocarcinomas. None of the pulmonary carcinoid tumors were immunoreactive. Moderately intense immunostaining was present in 50% of localized fibrous tumors. Malignant mesotheliomas were nonimmunoreactive for Kit in 95% of cases. Conclusion.—Non–small cell lung carcinomas showed very limited expression of Kit. Lung tumors with neuroendocrine differentiation exhibited a wide spectrum of Kit immunoreactivity, ranging from rare in pulmonary carcinoid tumors to frequent in SCLC. The high frequency of Kit immunostaining in SCLC has important potential therapeutic implications. Demonstration of Kit positivity in some localized fibrous tumors in this study contrasts with absent immunoreactivity in solitary fibrous tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. The paucity of Kit staining in malignant mesothelioma suggests these tumors are unlikely to respond to currently available tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

[...]at greater risk if you've got a lung disease like COPD or [00:00:45]cystic fibrosis, or you've recently been exposed to the flu or exposed to cigarette smoke. [00:01:55]If you're pneumonia is really severe or you have another serious health problem, [00:02:00]your doctor may recommend that you get treated in the hospital. Because this method relies on machine learning algorithms, the quality of transcripts may vary.

Asbestos fibers have not been reported in tissues from the peritoneal cavity. Therefore, omentum, mesentery, and lung tissues from 20 individuals in whom mesothelioma was diagnosed were analyzed for asbestos bodies and asbestos fibers. Tissue was digested and prepared filters were analyzed by light microscopy and analytical transmission electron microscopy. Asbestos bodies were found in the lungs of 18 individuals, mesentery samples from 5, and omentum samples from 2. Uncoated asbestos fibers were found in lungs of 19 patients, 17 of whom had fibers in at least one extrapulmonary site. The most common asbestos in the omentum and mesentery was amosite. Several features of asbestos found in lung influenced the likelihood of amphibole fibers being found in the omentum or mesentery. Lung features included total amphibole fiber burden, length, aspect ratio, and ferruginous body burden. An increased total ferruginous body burden was strongly associated with increased likelihood of detecting amphiboles in the omentum (p < 0. 05). Asbestos fibers reach areas in the peritoneal cavity where some mesotheliomas develop. This study suggests their presence can be predicted based on concentrations and characteristics of fiber burdens in lung tissue.

Various quality assurance procedures are applied in pathology and analytical microscopy laboratories to ensure accurate results. To assess the potential of cross-contamination of tissue with asbestos fibers and asbestos bodies during the fixation and washing process. Lung tissue from 10 patients with potential asbestos-related disease was evaluated. Samples of fixative, water, and lung tissue from each case were evaluated by light and analytical transmission electron microscopy for asbestos bodies and uncoated asbestos fibers. The lung samples tested contained a range of asbestos bodies and uncoated asbestos fibers. One wash water sample contained one asbestos body. No asbestos bodies or uncoated asbestos fibers were found in any other water or fixative samples. The absence of uncoated asbestos fibers in wash water or fixative samples argues that the fixation process stabilizes asbestos fibers within tissue and the protocol used in this pathology laboratory protects against cross-contamination of tissue. The finding of one asbestos body in one water sample further supports the efficiency of the protective controls used in the testing methods, since this asbestos body was in the external solution that was being discarded before tissue sampling occurred.

To establish a histologic diagnosis of pneumonia by consensus of a panel of pathologists, to test the interobserver and intraobserver variation in the histologic diagnosis of pneumonia, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of diagnosing pneumonia with and without preselected histologic criteria, and to establish more specific histologic criteria for the diagnosis of pneumonia. The study group consisted of 39 patients who died after a mean of 14 days of mechanical ventilation. A postmortem open lung biopsy was performed on all patients. The tissue was reviewed independently by four pathologists who categorized the slides from each patient as showing or not showing pneumonia. Interobserver variation was calculated using the kappa statistic. Six months following the initial evaluation, the same slides were resubmitted to one of the pathologists for reevaluation to look for intraobserver error. Finally, the slides were reviewed and categorized by the criteria of Johanson et al into no pneumonia, mild, moderate, or severe bronchopneumonia. A comparison was made of the patients selected as demonstrating histologic pneumonia by each of the examinations. The reliability coefficient (kappa) measuring agreement among the four pathologists was good at 0.916. However, the prevalence of pneumonia as determined by each of the four pathologists varied; pathologist A, 15 of 39 (38%); pathologist B, 12 of 39 (31%); pathologist C, 9 of 39 (23%); and pathologist D, 7 of 39 (18%). Resubmitting the same slides to the same pathologist 6 months later resulted in reclassification of 2 of 39 patients. Using the histologic criteria of Johanson and colleagues, 14 patients were selected as having pneumonia compared with only nine patients selected by consensus of three of four pathologists. Recognition of histologic pneumonia varies among pathologists. The preselected criteria of Johanson and colleagues detected histologic pneumonia in eight of nine patients picked by consensus of pathologists, but six additional patients classified as “no histologic pneumonia” by the consensus of pathologists were judged to have histologic pneumonia by these criteria. The results established the necessity for standardization of histologic criteria for studies using biopsy as the gold standard for bacterial pneumonia. An atlas showing the criteria used in our selection was developed.