Premium
Immunohistochemical staining of non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma in paraffin sections using the MB 1 and MT 1 monoclonal antibodies
Author(s) -
Dobson C. M.,
Myskow M. W.,
Krajewski A. S.,
Carpenter F. H.,
Horne C. H. W.
Publication year - 1987
Publication title -
the journal of pathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.964
H-Index - 184
eISSN - 1096-9896
pISSN - 0022-3417
DOI - 10.1002/path.1711530304
Subject(s) - pathology , staining , lymphoma , monoclonal antibody , immunoperoxidase , malignant histiocytosis , immunohistochemistry , plasmacytoma , antibody , monoclonal , medicine , biology , histiocyte , immunology , multiple myeloma
We have performed a single blind trial to assess the value of the monoclonal antibodies MB 1 and MT 1 in lymphoma classification. Sixty cases of non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) were stained with MB 1 and MT 1 using an indirect immunoperoxidase technique in paraffin sections. The majority of B tumours (27/33) stained with MB 1 , and most of the T tumours (24/27) stained with MT 1 . The MB 1 antibody often produced rather weak staining but it was apparently highly specific for B cells, with only three (3/27) of the T tumours (two cases of ‘malignant histiocytosis’ of the intestine (MHI) and one pleomorphic T‐cell lymphoma) displaying ‘false’ positivity. The MT 1 antibody generally produced very strong staining, but it was not very selective, with 14/33 of the B lymphomas displaying ‘false’ positivity. The cross‐reactivity observed in 17 cases led to only three misdiagnoses, two B tumours being designated as T lymphomas and one T tumour being designated as a B lymphoma. In a few cases (7/17), dual staining with both antibodies precluded firm diagnosis. In other cases (6/17), classification was possible despite some of the tumour cells showing dual staining. The seventeenth case was a plasmacytoma displaying MT 1 positivity only. While the monoclonal antibodies MB 1 and MT 1 are of use in classifying lymphomas in paraffin section, they are not entirely lineage‐specific, and the uncritical use of these two reagents alone may give rise to misdiagnosis; the use of a panel of monoclonal antibodies may yield more accurate results. As with any immunohistochemical marker, their limitations should be recognized; interpretation must be judicious and always in the context of the histological appearances.