Treatment strategies for meniscal lesions: from past to prospective therapeutics.

Menisci play an important role in the biomechanics of knee joint function, including loading transmission, joint lubrication, prevention of soft tissue impingement during motion and joint stability. Meniscal repair presents a challenge due to a lack of vascularization that limits the healing capacity of meniscal tissue. In this review, the authors aimed to untangle the available treatment options for repairing meniscal tears. Various surgical procedures have been developed to treat meniscal tears; however, clinical outcomes are limited. Consequently, numerous researchers have focused on different treatments such as the application of exogenous and/or autologous growth factors, scaffolds including tissue-derived matrix, cell-based therapy and miRNA-210. The authors present current and prospective treatment strategies for meniscal lesions.

One of the most common knee injuries, especially in athletes, is a meniscal tear. There are two wedge-shaped pieces of fibrocartilage that act as shock absorbers between the thighbone and shinbone (menisci). The menisci help to transmit weight from one bone to another and play an important role in knee stability. The challenge for researchers and clinicians is to repair meniscal injuries, despite the lack of vascularization. The authors discuss the available approaches for repairing meniscal tears. Non surgical and surgical procedures are reviewed, clarifying their clinical outcomes. Other approaches to tissue engineering are also discussed. Using the patient's cells may be a potential strategy to repair meniscal injuries and improve the durability of the knee joint.

Identification of DAB2 and Intelectin-1 as Novel Positive Immunohistochemical Markers of Epithelioid Mesothelioma by Transcriptome Microarray Analysis for Its Differentiation From Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma.

As there are currently no absolute immunohistochemical positive markers for the definite diagnosis of malignant epithelioid mesothelioma, the identification of additional "positive" markers that may facilitate this diagnosis becomes of clinical importance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify novel positive markers of malignant mesothelioma. Whole genome gene expression analysis was performed using RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections of epithelioid mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Gene expression analysis revealed that disabled homolog 2 (DAB2) and Intelectin-1 had significantly higher expression in epithelioid mesothelioma compared with that in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The increased mRNA expression of DAB2 and Intelectin-1 was validated by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction of RNA from tumor tissue and protein expression was validated by Western blotting of 5 mesothelioma cell lines. The utility of DAB2 and Intelectin-1 in the differential diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma was examined by an immunohistochemical study of 75 cases of epithelioid mesothelioma and 67 cases of pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The positive rates of DAB2 and Intelectin-1 expression in epithelioid mesothelioma were 80.0% and 76.0%, respectively, and 3.0% and 0%, respectively, in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemically, the sensitivity and specificity of DAB2 was 80% and 97% and those of Intelectin-1 were 76% and 100% for differentiation of epithelioid mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma. In conclusion, DAB2 and Intelectin-1 are newly identified positive markers of mesothelioma and have potential to be included in future immunohistochemical marker panels for differentiation of epithelioid mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

Utility and pitfalls of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis between epithelioid mesothelioma and poorly differentiated lung squamous cell carcinoma.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to clarify the usefulness of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma with a solid growth pattern [solid epithelioid mesothelioma (SEM)] and poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (PDSCC), and to confirm the validity of a specific type of antibody panel. Additionally, we aimed to clarify the pitfalls of immunohistochemical analyses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens from 36 cases of SEM and 38 cases of PDSCC were immunohistochemically examined for calretinin, podoplanin (D2-40), Wilms' tumour gene product (WT1), cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, p40, p63, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial-related antigen (MOC31), claudin-4, thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1), and napsin A. WT1 showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (85.1%) as a mesothelial marker, and CEA, p40 and claudin-4 showed higher diagnostic accuracies (95.9%, 94.6%, and 93.2%, respectively) as carcinoma markers. Calretinin (diagnostic accuracy: 75.7%), D2-40 (diagnostic accuracy: 67.6%), CK5/6 (diagnostic accuracy: 63.5%), TTF-1 (diagnostic accuracy: 55.4%) and napsin A (diagnostic accuracy: 52.7%) could not differentiate between SEM and PDSCC. Among these markers, the combination of calretinin and WT1 showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (86.5%) as a positive marker, and the combination of p40 and CEA showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (97.3%) as a negative marker. The combination of CEA and claudin-4 also showed relatively high diagnostic accuracy (94.6%) as a negative marker. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the combination of WT1 and calretinin as a positive maker, and the combination of CEA and claudin-4 as a negative marker, for differential diagnoses of SEM and PDSCC.