Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 473

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma: 2012 Update of the Consensus Statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group

Husain, Aliya N., Colby, Thomas, Ordonez, Nelson, Krausz, Thomas, Attanoos, Richard, Beasley, Mary Beth, Borczuk, Alain C., Butnor, Kelly, Cagle, Philip T., Chirieac, Lucian R., Churg, Andrew, Dacic, Sanja, Fraire, Armando, Galateau-Salle, Francoise, Gibbs, Allen, Gown, Allen, Hammar, Samuel, Litzky, Leslie, Marchevsky, Alberto M., Nicholson, Andrew G., Roggli, Victor, Travis, William D., Wick, Mark·2013·Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5858/arpa.2012-0214-oa

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Cited by

See all 473

Metadata

Authors
Husain, A. N., Colby, T., Ordonez, N., Krausz, T., Attanoos, R., Beasley, M. B., Borczuk, A. C., Butnor, K., Cagle, P. T., Chirieac, L. R., Churg, A., Dacic, S., Fraire, A., Galateau-Salle, F., Gibbs, A., Gown, A., Hammar, S., Litzky, L., Marchevsky, A. M., Nicholson, A. G., Roggli, V., Travis, W. D., & Wick, M.
Venue
Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Published
2013-05
Volume
137
Issue
5
Pages
647-667
ISSN
  • 0003-9985 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-2165
OpenAlex
W2917840530
Cited by
473
References
60
FWCI
32.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma: 2012 Update of the Consensus Statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5858/arpa.2012-0214-oa
The paper
Husain, A. N., Colby, T., Ordonez, N., Krausz, T., Attanoos, R., Beasley, M. B., Borczuk, A. C., Butnor, K., Cagle, P. T., Chirieac, L. R., Churg, A., Dacic, S., Fraire, A., Galateau-Salle, F., Gibbs, A., Gown, A., Hammar, S., Litzky, L., Marchevsky, A. M., . . . Wick, M. (2013). Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma: 2012 Update of the Consensus Statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0214-oa

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.