Expression and association of vascular endothelial growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, and phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription factor 3 in malignant gliomas.

Objectives: Angiogenesis is one of the main characteristic features of malignant gliomas. Phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription factor 3 (pSTAT3) is not only involved in glioma cell proliferation, anti-apoptosis, and immunosuppression but also plays a key role in cell migration and invasion. Constitutively, activated pSTAT3 induces expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor VEGFR, leading to endothelial cell proliferation and abnormal microvascular formation causing peritumoral edema (PTE). PTE is one of the significant contributors to mortality in malignant gliomas. Therefore, understanding the molecular mechanism involved in the evolution of gliomas is necessary. This study was to assess the level of expression of pSTAT3, VEGF, and VEGFR in malignant gliomas and analyze the extent of PTE and the extent of expression of one or more of these markers. Materials and Methods: This study included 84 patients categorized as per the World Health Organization classification of central nervous system tumors into grade IV, III, and II gliomas to investigate the expression of pSTAT3, VEGF, and VEGFR by immunohistochemistry. Furthermore, the presence or absence of PTE was determined using magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography scans in these patients. Results: The association between the markers (pSTAT3, VEGFR, and VEGF) and the extent of PTE in these patients was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The pSTAT3, VEGF-R, and VEGF signaling pathways could contribute to peritumoral edema and might be a regulatory mechanism during PTE formation during tumorigenesis and progression.

Bacillary Positive Tuberculous Body Fluid Smears: A Perspective on How Fast to Use Acid Fast.

Background Tuberculous effusions are common. Classically, they are described as bacteria poor and lymphocyte rich. Our experience, however, has been more varied. We compiled this rare group of bacteria-positive tuberculous fluids to document their cytologic spectrum and to look for possible predictors of bacillary positivity. Methods Fifty-one cases of bacillary positive fluids were identified and their clinicopathological details were noted. Per case, the smear background was assigned as either clear, caseous, suppurative, granular proteinaceous or frankly hemorrhagic. Fine, punched-out vacuoles in the smear background were also noted. The bacillary load in each case was classified from scanty to 3+. Eventually, the clinicopathologic variables were tabulated for frequency and studied for any association with bacillary presence. Results Only 19 of the 51 patients had a history of tuberculosis. Retropositive patients comprised a small proportion (9.8%) and did not always indicate strong (3+) bacillary positivity. The granular proteinaceous background was the most frequent (35%) pattern. Only a suppurative background was associated with strong bacillary positivity. Fine vacuoles were seen almost always with caseous and granular proteinaceous backgrounds but without statistical significance. Conclusion Tuberculous effusions can have diverse smear backgrounds, not necessarily one rich in caseous material. When tuberculosis is known or clinically suspected, non-classical findings such as abundant neutrophils or suppurative background should not dissuade one from requisitioning mycobacterial stains. In fact, acid-fast stains should probably routinely accompany Giemsa slides of clinically idiopathic effusions in endemic areas since it is still the cheapest and fastest method for a conclusive diagnosis.