ABSTRACT
The diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is challenging and requires immunohistochemistry or electron microscopy assays to specifically differentiate MPM from lung adenocarcinoma. An ultrastructural study of fresh tissue is considered to be the "gold standard." In most cases, the first diagnostic approach is performed on pleural effusion, and in some patients, this is the only available sample for diagnosis. The aim of the present study is to evaluate if an examination of pleural effusion samples based on electron microscopy (EMpe) is a useful tool for the differential diagnosis of MPM and lung adenocarcinoma. An EMpe study was performed in 25 pleural effusion samples. Histological and immunohistochemical markers confirmed the diagnosis of either mesothelioma (5) or adenocarcinoma (20). Of the five cases that were diagnosed with mesothelioma, two samples (40%) showed cells with "bushy" microvilli, which are characteristic of mesothelioma, by EMpe, and three were acellular (60%). Of the 20 cases of adenocarcinoma, EMpe showed cells with short microvilli in 9 (45%), and 11 were acellular (55%). EMpe identifies unequivocal morphological changes that are useful for the differential diagnosis of MPM or adenocarcinoma when the pleural effusion sample contains evaluable tumor cells.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Mesothelioma/diagnosis , Pleural Effusion, Malignant/pathology , Pleural Neoplasms/diagnosis , Adenocarcinoma/ultrastructure , Adenocarcinoma of Lung , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biomarkers, Tumor/analysis , Cytodiagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Immunohistochemistry , Lung Neoplasms/ultrastructure , Male , Mesothelioma/ultrastructure , Microscopy, Electron, Transmission , Middle Aged , Pleural Neoplasms/ultrastructureABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tobacco-smoke is the major etiological factor related to lung cancer. However, other important factor is chronic wood smoke exposure (WSE). Approximately 30 % of lung cancer patients in Mexico have a history of WSE, and present different clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics compared to tobacco related lung cancer, including differences in mutational profiles. There are several molecular alterations identified in WSE associated lung cancer, however most studies have focused on the analysis of changes in several pathogenesis related proteins. METHODS: Our group evaluated gene expression profiles of primary lung adenocarcinoma, from patients with history of WSE or tobacco exposure. Differential expression between these two groups were studied through gene expression microarrays. RESULTS: Results of the gene expression profiling revealed 57 statistically significant genes (p < 0.01). The associated biological functional pathways included: lipid metabolism, biochemistry of small molecules, molecular transport, cell morphology, function and maintenance. A highlight of our analysis is that three of the main functional networks represent 37 differentially expressed genes out of the 57 found. These hubs are related with ubiquitin C, GABA(A) receptor-associated like protein; and the PI3K/AKT and MEK/ERK signaling pathways. CONCLUSION: Our results reflect the intrinsic biology that sustains the development of adenocarcinoma related to WSE and show that there is a different gene expression profile of WSE associated lung adenocarcinoma compared to tobacco exposure, suggesting that they arise through different carcinogenic mechanisms, which may explain the clinical and mutation profile divergences between both lung adenocarcinomas.
