You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 54, Issue 12
  • MUC1 (EMA) is preferentially expressed by ALK positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma, in the normally glycosylated or only partly hypoglycosylated form

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

MUC1 (EMA) is preferentially expressed by ALK positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma, in the normally glycosylated or only partly hypoglycosylated form
Free
  1. R L Ten Berge1,*,
  2. F G M Snijdewint2,*,
  3. S von Mensdorff-Pouilly2,
  4. R J J Poort-Keesom2,
  5. J J Oudejans1,
  6. J W R Meijer4,
  7. R Willemze3,
  8. J Hilgers5,
  9. C J L M Meijer1
  1. 1Department of Pathology, University Hospital Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Vrije Universiteit
  3. 3Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Vrije Universiteit
  4. 4Department of Pathology, Rijnstate Hospital, 6815 AD Arnhem, The Netherlands
  5. 5Biotech and Research Division, Sanbe Fama, Bandung, Indonesia
  1. Dr ten Berge rl.tenberge{at}azvu.nl

Abstract

Aims—To investigate whether MUC1 mucin, a high molecular weight transmembrane glycoprotein, also known as epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), differs in its expression and degree of glycosylation between anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and classic Hodgkin's disease (HD), and whether MUC1 immunostaining can be used to differentiate between CD30 positive large cell lymphomas.

Methods/Results—Using five different monoclonal antibodies (E29/anti-EMA, DF3, 139H2, VU-4H5, and SM3) that distinguish between various MUC1 glycoforms, high MUC1 expression (50–95% of tumour cells positive) was found in 13 of 17 anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive systemic nodal ALCLs, and in one of 20 cases of classic HD. Scattered or focal staining (< 25% of tumour cells) was seen in two additional ALK positive systemic ALCLs, two additional classic HD cases, and in three of 20 cases of ALK negative systemic nodal ALCL. Primary cutaneous ALCL showed no staining with the anti-MUC1 antibodies. Antibodies detecting hypoglycosylated MUC1 were found to be absent in all lymphomas (SM3) or present in only six of 15 ALK positive ALCLs (VU-4H5).

Conclusions—MUC1 is preferentially expressed by a subtype of systemic nodal ALCL, characterised by ALK expression, but is found in only a few cases of classic HD and ALK negative ALCL. Therefore, although MUC1 could be used in a panel of markers for CD30 positive lymphomas, it is probably not a valuable tool to differentiate between ALK negative CD30 positive large cell lymphomas. Finally, the degree of MUC1 glycosylation in lymphomas is relatively high, compared with the aberrant hypoglycosylation found in adenocarcinomas.

  • MUC1 (epithelial membrane antigen) glycoforms
  • anaplastic large cell lymphoma
  • ALK
  • Hodgkin's disease

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Systemic (nodal) anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is a CD30 positive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of T cell or null cell phenotype, mainly arising in lymph nodes.1 In 30–50% of cases, a chromosomal aberration such as the t(2;5)(p23;q35) translocation gives rise to expression of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) protein,2 identifying a subgroup of patients with systemic ALCL with excellent prognosis.3–6 ALK expression seems specific for systemic nodal ALCL; it is not found in classic Hodgkin's disease (HD)7–11 or primary cutaneous ALCL.7,10,12,13 Morphologically, these lymphomas may closely resemble systemic ALCL, being also characterised by CD30 positive tumour cells with abundant cytoplasm, large irregular nuclei, and a prominent single nucleolus or multiple nucleoli.1 Clinically, however, classic HD and primary cutaneous ALCL have a more favourable prognosis than ALK negative systemic ALCL.12,14–16 Because of the differences in clinical behaviour and subsequent therapeutic strategies, differentiating ALK negative systemic ALCL from classic HD or primary cutaneous ALCL is very important.

    Several markers can be used in the differential diagnosis of ALCL and other CD30 positive lymphomas. One such marker is MUC1 mucin, also known as epithelial membrane antigen (EMA).17,18 MUC1 is a high molecular weight transmembrane glycoprotein, usually expressed on the luminal surface of glandular epithelia.18–20 It consists of protein core with a constant cytoplasmic domain of 69 amino acids, and an extracellular domain with a variable number of 20 amino acid tandem repeats, containing serine and threonine residues, to which multiple oligosaccharide side chains are O-linked21–24 (fig 1).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Extended MUC1 mucin molecule on a cell surface membrane with O-linked and N-linked glycosylated side chains. The insert shows a MUC1 20 mer single repeat peptide with O-linked hypoglycosylated side chains.

    Since the first rabbit polyclonal antisera raised against human milk fat globule,17 and the first monoclonal antibodies designated HMFG1 and HMFG225 were described, many anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies have been generated and characterised.26 Most react with a dominant epitope within the variable number of tandem repeats of the protein core; namely, the hydrophilic sequence of PDTRPAP.26–28 The specificity of antibody binding to the protein core depends largely on the extent of MUC1 glycosylation; during the ISOBM TD-4 workshop, clusters of monoclonal antibodies were identified that distinguish between the various glycoforms of MUC1.29,30

    Although MUC1 is defined as an epithelial antigen, in 1984 Delsol et al reported that lymphoid cells and malignancies express EMA.31 Since then, EMA (or more appropriately, MUC1) has been found to be consistently expressed on plasma cells20,31–32 and immature erythroid cells in normal haematolymphoid tissues,33,34 but not on CD34+ progenitor cells or resting T cells.32,34 Among peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), B cells show variable MUC1 expression,32,34 but T cells express MUC1 only after activation, for instance, by stimulation with phytohaemagglutinin (PHA).31,35 Cumulative experience on MUC1 expression in lymphoid malignancies, recently reviewed by Chittal et al,36 shows that plasma cell neoplasms and T/null cell ALCLs have the highest expression of MUC1 (approximately 85% and 60% of cases, respectively). In contrast, MUC1 expression was found to be low in classic HD and in cutaneous ALCL. Thus, based on the literature, MUC1 would seem a valuable tool for differentiating systemic nodal ALCL from classic HD or primary cutaneous ALCL.

    However, data on MUC1 expression in lymphomas are skewed in favour of the commercially available E29 (anti-EMA) monoclonal antibody37 because this is the anti-MUC1 antibody used most frequently in haematopathology. Furthermore, E29 binds to MUC1 independently of its degree of glycosylation,29 so little is known about the glycosylation pattern of MUC1 in lymphomas. In adenocarcinomas, MUC1 is overexpressed in its hypoglycosylated form,22,38,39 and is related to tumour progression and increased metastatic potential.40–42

    In our present study, we used the E29 antibody and four other MUC1 monoclonal antibodies that distinguish between the various glycoforms of MUC1. We investigated whether the expression and extent of glycosylation of MUC1 differs between ALCL of systemic and primary cutaneous origin and classic HD, and whether MUC1 is a valid tool in the differential diagnosis of these lymphomas. In addition, peripheral blood T and B cells, as well as a small number of T cell and B cell lymphomas, were investigated for MUC1 expression.

    Methods

    TISSUE SAMPLES

    Formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded tumour biopsies of ALK positive (n = 17) and ALK negative (n = 20) systemic nodal ALCL, primary cutaneous ALCL (n = 10), nodular sclerosing (NS) (n = 14), and mixed cellularity (MC) (n = 6) subtypes of classic HD were selected from the files of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Amsterdam, and from the department of pathology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands. We also selected samples of peripheral T cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) (n = 5), T lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LB) (n = 2), and nodal diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (n = 5). Cases were classified according to the proposed WHO classification43 and systemic ALCL was subtyped as described previously.44,45 ALK positive systemic ALCL could thus be divided into common type (n = 13), small cell variant (n = 3), and lymphohistiocytic type (n = 1); whereas ALK negative ALCL comprised common type (n = 11), small cell variant (n = 1), lymphohistiocytic type (n = 6), and giant cell rich variant (n = 2).

    Standard immunophenotyping included CD30, ALK, CD15, B cell markers CD20/L26 and CD79A, and T cell markers CD3 and CD45RO/UCHL-1. By definition, systemic nodal ALCL, primary cutaneous ALCL, and classic HD were all CD30 positive. Two cases of DLBCL showed CD30 expression in a subset of the tumour cells. ALK expression was absent in all cases of classic HD, primary cutaneous ALCL, PTCL-NOS, T-LB, and DLBCL.

    PBMC STIMULATION AND CELL SUBSET ISOLATION

    PBMCs were isolated from the peripheral blood of healthy volunteer donors by density centrifugation on Ficoll-Hypaque (1.077 g/ml; Pharmacia, Uppsala, Sweden). Cells were washed three times with HBSS (Gibco, Paisley, UK) supplemented with 2% fetal calf serum (FCS; HyClone Laboratories, Logan, Utah, USA) and cryopreserved in IMDM (Gibco) with 50% FCS and 10% DMSO until use. PBMCs were thawed, washed three times in HBSS with 2% FCS, and cultured in IMDM plus 10% FCS and gentamycin (80 μg/ml) in the presence of PHA (Murex Diagnostic Limited, Dartford, UK) for four days. CD4+, CD8+, or CD19+ cells were isolated from the stimulated PBMCs using the corresponding mouse antihuman monoclonal antibodies coupled to magnetic beads (Dynal, Oslo, Norway). Cytospins with 2 × 105 cells/slide were made, dried, and fixed in 3.7% formalin/phosphate buffered saline (PBS) for 15 minutes, washed three times in PBS, fixed in −20°C ethanol for five minutes, washed three times in PBS, and stored at −20°C in PBS containing sucrose/glycerol until immunohistochemistry.

    MUC1 MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES

    The five anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies selected are all directed at the immunodominant tandem repeat region of the protein core, but have different affinities, depending on the mode and extent of MUC1 glycosylation. Table 1 describes the immunogens used for the generation of and other characteristics of the monoclonal antibodies. E29 and 139H2 detect all forms of MUC1, irrespective of its degree of glycosylation.29,46 DF3 also binds to MUC1 relatively independently of its degree of glycosylation; however, it does not detect hyperglycosylated MUC1, as present in normal small intestine, and has a preference for membrane MUC1 staining above Golgi MUC1 staining.47 VU-4H548 can only detect MUC1 if the threonine residue in PDTRPAP of the tandem repeat region is non-glycosylated. SM338 only detects MUC1 when it is hypoglycosylated; that is, contains relatively short sugar side chains. All monoclonal antibodies are commercially available, with the exception of DF3 (kindly provided by Dr DW Kufe, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA) and 139H2, which was developed in the laboratory of one of the authors (JH).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of the anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies and staining dilutions used

    IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY

    Paraffin wax embedded sections (4 μm) were mounted on poly-L-lysine coated slides. After dewaxing, sections were immersed in methanol containing 0.3% hydrogen peroxide for 30 minutes to block endogenous peroxidase activity. Slides were pretreated with an antigen retrieval method by heating the slides in a microwave oven in citrate buffer (10 mM, pH 6.0) for 10 minutes (360 W). After rinsing in PBS, slides were preincubated with normal rabbit serum, diluted 1/50 in PBS with 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA), for 10 minutes. The anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies were used at the dilutions given in table 1, and incubated for one hour at room temperature. Subsequently, slides were incubated with biotinylated rabbit antimouse antibody (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark) diluted 1/500 in PBS/BSA for 30 minutes, followed by incubation with 1/200 streptavidin biotinylated horseradish peroxidase complex (Dako) in PBS/BSA for one hour; 3`3-diaminobenzidine was used as chromogen and haematoxylin as the counterstain.

    INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

    After immunostaining, cases were examined under the light microscope. MUC1 expression on tumour cells of the lymphomas was scored as follows: negative (−), scattered or focal staining of less than 25% of tumour cells (+/−), staining of 25–50% of tumour cells (+), staining of 50–75% of tumour cells (++), or staining of more than 75% of tumour cells (+++). Qualitative variables were analysed by Pearson χ2 test or by the Fisher exact test, when appropriate. All p values are based on two tailed statistical analysis, and p values below 0.05 were considered to be significant. All analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA).

    Results

    SYSTEMIC NODAL ALCL

    In general, E29 (anti-EMA), DF3, and 139H2, which bind to normally glycosylated and adenocarcinoma associated hypoglycosylated MUC1, gave similar staining patterns in the tissue sections, although in some cases staining with 139H2 was slightly lower than with DF3 or E29 (table 2). Staining was usually localised to the tumour cell membrane (fig 2A), although sometimes it was both membranous and cytoplasmic, with occasional dot-like staining of the Golgi area (fig 2B).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Staining for anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies in tumour cells of ALK positive systemic nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    (A) ALK positive systemic nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) case, showing membranous MUC1 expression in most of the tumour cells with the monoclonal antibody E29 (anti-EMA). (B) Another ALK positive systemic nodal ALCL case, showing both membranous, cytoplasmic, and occasional dot-like staining of the Golgi area of tumour cells with monoclonal antibody E29. (C) ALK negative systemic nodal ALCL case, showing tumour cells negative for antibody DF3, whereas plasma cells are positive, serving as an internal positive control. (D) ALK positive systemic nodal ALCL case, showing cytoplasmic and sometimes membranous staining with the VU-4H5 antibody. (E) Nodular sclerosing case of classic Hodgkin's disease, showing DF3 staining in a typical Reed-Sternberg tumour cell.

    Staining with these three monoclonal antibodies was seen in 15 of 17 ALK positive systemic nodal ALCL cases (table 2), with 13 cases showing staining of 50% to > 90% of tumour cells, and two cases showing scattered staining of < 25% of tumour cells. In contrast, only three of 20 ALK negative systemic nodal ALCL cases showed MUC1 expression: staining in these cases was focal or scattered, in < 25% of tumour cells (table 3). When MUC1 expression was defined as “high” (> 50% of tumour cells staining positively) or “low” (0–50% of tumour cells), ALK expression was significantly related to high MUC1 expression: 13 of 17 ALK positive cases showed high MUC1 expression, whereas all ALK negative cases showed low MUC1 expression (p < 0.001) (fig 2C).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Number of cases staining positively for anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies in tumour cells of ALK negative lymphomas

    Cases staining positively with E29, DF3, and 139H2 were all negative for SM3, but in six ALK positive systemic nodal ALCLs staining with VU-4H5 was found, with the percentage of positive tumour cells ranging from a few to > 50% (table 2; fig 2D).

    PRIMARY CUTANEOUS ALCL

    None of 10 primary cutaneous ALCL stained positively with the anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies.

    CLASSIC HD

    In classic HD, MUC1 expression as detected by E29, DF3, and 139H2 was found in three of 20 cases (table 3). MUC1 staining was high in one, with > 50% of tumour cells staining positively (fig 2E), but low in the other two cases, showing only scattered staining of < 25% of tumour cells. None of the classic HD cases showed staining for either SM3 or VU-4H5.

    The staining pattern was the same as seen in systemic nodal ALCL—in most cases membranous, but sometimes membranous and cytoplasmic, with occasional dot-like staining of the Golgi area.

    T AND B CELL LYMPHOMAS

    One of five PTCL-NOS cases showed focal, membranous staining with E29, DF3, and 139H2. SM3 and VU-4H5 were negative in all PTCL-NOS cases. The two T-LB cases showed no staining with the five anti-MUC1 monoclonal antibodies (table 3). Of five nodal DLBCL cases, one showed membranous MUC1 expression, staining positively for E29, DF3, and 139H2 in most of the tumour cells, and focally for VU-4H5 (table 3). Interestingly, this case also expressed CD30 on tumour cells. Another CD30 positive DLBCL was MUC1 negative.

    PERIPHERAL BLOOD MONONUCLEAR CELLS

    As shown in table 4, unstimulated PBMCs derived from normal healthy donors showed no MUC1 expression. However, when cells had been cultured in the presence of PHA, both the CD4+ and CD8+ subsets of PBMCs showed strong staining with DF3 and 139H2, but no staining with SM3 or VU-4H5. In the stimulated CD19+ subset of PBMCs, sporadic CD19+ blast-like cells stained positively with DF3 and 139H2.

    View this table:
    Table 4

    MUC1 expression on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs)

    Discussion

    Previously, several groups have investigated the expression of MUC1 in malignant lymphomas. However, data on MUC1 expression in lymphomas are skewed in favour of the E29 (anti-EMA) monoclonal antibody,37 the one used most frequently in haematopathology. Furthermore, E29 does not distinguish between hyperglycosylated and hypoglycosylated MUC129; therefore, little is known about the MUC1 glycoforms present on lymphoma tumour cells. In our present study, we have used a panel of five monoclonal antibodies to study the expression and extent of glycosylation of MUC1 in ALCL and classic HD. As already described, these five antibodies all react to the immunodominant PDTRP(AP) sequence within the MUC1 protein core, but have different binding affinities, depending on the mode of glycosylation of MUC1.26,29,30,46

    Our results show that MUC1, as detected by E29, DF3, and 139H2, is preferentially expressed in a subtype of systemic nodal ALCL, characterised by the presence of the ALK protein. E29 and DF3 showed similar strong staining of most of the tumour cells, whereas 139H2 in some cases stained a lower number of tumour cells. No staining was found with SM3, showing that the MUC1 present in ALK positive systemic nodal ALCL contains long sugar side chains. Approximately 40% of cases staining positively for E29, DF3, and 139H2 also showed VU-4H5 staining, indicating that in these cases the PDTRPAP region of the MUC1 protein core is non-glycosylated. Thus, MUC1 is aberrantly glycosylated in only a proportion of ALK positive systemic nodal ALCL cases, in contrast to adenocarcinomas, which usually show overexpression of hypoglycosylated MUC1.

    Primary cutaneous ALCL totally lacked MUC1 expression, and only a few ALK negative systemic nodal ALCL and classic HD cases showed MUC1 expression, usually present as focal, scattered staining with E29, DF3, and 139H2 of < 25% of tumour cells. These cases stained for neither VU-4H5 nor SM3, again suggesting that MUC1 in lymphomas is usually normally (hyper)glycosylated.

    Systemic nodal ALCL, primary cutaneous ALCL and classic HD are considered separate disease entities,1,43 with the last two entities showing good prognosis compared with ALK negative systemic nodal ALCL.12,14–16 However, because they share many similarities with regard to morphology and immunophenotype (CD30 expression), in some instances the initial diagnosis may pose a problem. EMA, a MUC1 epitope, is one of the markers currently used for differential diagnosis. Previous studies reported that it was highly expressed in systemic ALCL, but low in classic HD, and absent in primary cutaneous ALCL.16,31,33,36,49–52 However, our study shows that the high MUC1 expression in systemic nodal ALCL is largely attributable to the ALK positive cases. Other papers also show a strong association between MUC1 (EMA) and ALK expression, although this was never explicitly stated.45,53–55 Thus, MUC1 may be included in a panel of markers for CD30 positive large cell lymphomas (for which purpose the commercially available E29 antibody seems well suited), but is probably not a useful tool in differentiating between ALK negative CD30 positive lymphomas.

    MUC1 expression is related to late differentiation stages in normal B cells32,34 and is probably an activation related phenomenon because it is usually coexpressed with other activation markers, such as CD30.20,56 In line with the literature,31,32,34,35 we found that normal peripheral blood T cells expressed MUC1 only after activation. Like MUC1 found in most ALK positive ALCL, MUC1 in these T cells was normally hyperglycosylated, as demonstrated by the absence of SM3 or VU-4H5 staining. The strong MUC1 expression by ALK positive ALCL might be explained by this lymphoma subtype being a neoplastic equivalent of activated T cells. Previously, we and others showed that ALK expression is highly associated with the expression of cytotoxic proteins, such as granzyme B and/or TIA-1.53,57 Thus, ALK positive systemic ALCLs are probably derived from activated cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) that express MUC1 along with cytotoxic granules.

    The clinical relevance of MUC1 expression in lymphomas is not yet known. In human adenocarcinomas, MUC1 is abundantly overexpressed and hypoglycosylated,22,38,39 and the overexpression is related to advanced stage, increased metastatic potential, and invasive growth,40–42 as a result of interference with adhesion processes.58,59 Furthermore, MUC1 has both immunostimulatory and immunosuppressive effects. On the one hand, MUC1 is capable of eliciting a humoral60 and a cytotoxic61–65 immune response; on the other hand, soluble MUC1 inhibits CTL proliferation and causes T cell anergy.35,62,66–67 In systemic nodal ALCL, we found that MUC1 expression was related to a good prognosis; however, when analysed together with ALK expression in multivariate analysis, MUC1 expression lost its predictive value (data not shown). Thus, the prognostic value of MUC1 in systemic ALCL might be attributed to its strong association with ALK expression. Further studies are required to elucidate the possible role of MUC1 expression in lymphomagenesis.

    We conclude that MUC1 expression is preferentially found in ALK positive systemic nodal ALCL, but is low to absent in ALK negative systemic nodal ALCL, primary cutaneous ALCL, and classic HD. As such, MUC1 immunostaining is not a valuable tool to distinguish between these three lymphoma subtypes. Finally, in contrast to adenocarcinomas, malignant lymphomas express MUC1 that is normally (hyper)glycosylated or shows hypoglycosylation in only a proportion of cases.

    References

    1. ↵
      Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Stein H, et al. A revised European–American classification of lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal from the international lymphoma study group. Blood 1994;84:1361–92.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Morris SW, Kirstein MN, Valentine MB, et al. Fusion of a kinase gene, ALK, to a nucleolar protein gene, NPM, in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Science 1994;263:1281–84.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      Shiota M, Nakamura S, Ichinohasama R, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphomas expressing the novel chimeric protein p80 NPM/ALK: a distinct clinicopathologic entity. Blood 1995;86:1954–60.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ten Berge RL, Dukers DF, Oudejans JJ, et al. Adverse effects of activated cytotoxic T-lymphocytes on the clinical outcome of nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Blood 1999;93:2688–96.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. Falini B, Pileri S, Zinzani PL, et al. ALK-positive lymphoma: clinicopathological findings and outcome. Blood 1999;93:2697–706.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      Gascoyne RD, Aoun P, Wu D, et al. Prognostic significance of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) protein expression in adults with anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Blood 1999;93:3913–21.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      Pulford K, Lamant L, Morris SW, et al. Detection of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and nucleolar protein nucleophosmin (NPM)-ALK proteins in normal and neoplastic cells with the monoclonal antibody ALK1. Blood 1997;89:1394–404.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. Lamant L, Meggetto F, Al Saati T, et al. High incidence of the t(2;5)(p23;q35) translocation in anaplastic large cell lymphoma and its lack of detection in Hodgkin's disease: comparison of cytogenetic analysis, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction, and p80 immunostaining. Blood 1996;87:284–91.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. Sarris AH, Luthra R, Papadimitracopoulou V, et al. Amplification of genomic DNA demonstrates the presence of the t(2;5)(p23;q35) in anaplastic large cell lymphoma, but not in other non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease, or lymphomatoid papulosis. Blood 1996;88:1771–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      Wood GS, Hardman DL, Boni R, et al. Lack of the t(2;5) or other mutations resulting in expression of anaplastic lymphoma kinase catalytic domain in CD30+ primary cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders and Hodgkin's disease. Blood 1996;88:1765–70.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      Ladanyi M, Cavalchire G, Morris SW, et al. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for the Ki-1 anaplastic large cell lymphoma-associated t(2;5) translocation in Hodgkin's disease. Am J Pathol 1994;145:1296–300.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      ten Berge RL, Oudejans JJ, Ossenkoppele GJ, et al. ALK expression in extranodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma favours systemic disease with (primary) nodal involvement and a good prognosis and occurs before dissemination. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:445–50.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      DeCoteau JF, Butmarc JR, Kinney MC, et al. The t(2;5) chromosomal translocation is not a common feature of primary cutaneous CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorders: comparison with anaplastic large cell lymphoma of nodal origin. Blood 1996;87:3437–41.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      Filippa DA, Ladanyi M, Wollner N, et al. CD30 (Ki-1) positive malignant lymphomas: clinical, immunophenotypic, histologic, and genetic characteristics and differences with Hodgkin's disease. Blood 1996;87:2905–17.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. Rosenberg SA, Canellos GP. Hodgkin's disease. In: Canellos GP, Lister TA, Sklar JL, eds. The lymphomas. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1998:305–31.
    16. ↵
      de Bruin PC, Beljaards RC, van Heerde P, et al. Differences in clinical behaviour and immunophenotype between primary cutaneous and primary nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma of T-cell or null cell phenotype. Histopathology 1993;23:127–35.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      Ceriani RL, Thompson K, Peterson JA, et al. Surface differentiation antigens of human mammary epithelial cells carried on the milk fat globule. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1977;74:582–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      Heyderman E, Steele K, Ormerod MG. A new antigen on the epithelial membrane: its immunoperoxidase localisation in normal and neoplastic tissue. J Clin Pathol 1979;32:35–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. Sloane JP, Ormerod MG. Distribution of epithelial membrane antigen in normal and neoplastic tissues and its value in diagnostic tumor pathology. Cancer 1981;47:1786–95.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      Zotter S, Hageman PC, Lossnitzer A, et al. Tissue and tumor distribution of human polymorphic epithelial mucin. Cancer Rev 1988;11/12:55–101.
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      Gendler S, Taylor-Papadimitriou J, Duhig T, et al. A highly immunogenic region of a human polymorphic epithelial mucin expressed by carcinomas is made up of tandem repeats. J Biol Chem 1988;263:12820–3.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      Gendler SJ, Lancaster CA, Taylor-Papadimitriou J, et al. Molecular cloning and expression of human tumor associated polymorphic epithelial mucin. J Biol Chem 1990;265:15286–93.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. Ligtenberg MJL, Vos HL, Gennissen AMC, et al. Episialin, a carcinoma-associated mucin, is generated by a polymorphic gene encoding splice variants with alternative amino termini. J Biol Chem 1990;265:5573–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      Siddiqui J, Abe M, Hayes D, et al. Isolation and sequencing of a cDNA coding for the human DF3 breast carcinoma-associated antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1988;85:2320–3.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      Taylor-Papadimitriou J, Peterson JA, Arklie J, et al. Monoclonal antibodies to epithelium-specific components of the human milk fat globule membrane: production and reaction with cells in culture. Int J Cancer 1981;28:17–21.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      Price MR, Rye PD, Petrakou E, et al. Summary report on the ISOBM TD-4 workshop: analysis of 56 monoclonal antibodies against the MUC1 mucin—San Diego, California, November 17–23, 1996. Tumor Biol 1998;19(suppl 1):1–20.
      OpenUrl
    27. Xing PX, Reynolds K, Pietersz GA, et al. Effect of variations in peptide sequence on anti-human milk fat globule membrane antibody reactions. Immunology 1991;72:304–11.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      Burchell J, Taylor-Papadimitriou J, Boshell M, et al. A short sequence, within the amino acid tandem repeat of a cancer-associated mucin, contains immunodominant epitopes. Int J Cancer 1989;44:691–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      Cao Y, Karsten U, Hilgers J. Immunohistochemical characterization of a panel of 56 antibodies with normal human small intestine, colon, and breast tissues. Tumor Biol 1998;19(suppl 1):88–99.
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      Hanisch FG. Specificity clusters of MUC1-reactive mouse monoclonal antibodies. Tumor Biol 1998;19(suppl 1):111–17.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    31. ↵
      Delsol G, Gatter KC, Stein H, et al. Human lymphoid cells express epithelial membrane antigen. Lancet 1984;2:1124–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      Treon SP, Mollick JA, Urashima M, et al. MUC1 core protein is expressed on multiple myeloma cells and is induced by dexamethasone. Blood 1999;93:1287–98.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      Delsol G, Al Saati T, Gatter KC, et al. Coexpression of epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), Ki-1 and interleukin-2 receptor by anaplastic large cell lymphomas: diagnostic value in so-called “malignant histiocytosis”. Am J Pathol 1988;130:59–70.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      Brugger W, Buhring HJ, Grunebach F, et al. Expression of MUC1 epitopes on normal bone marrow: implications for the detection of micrometastatic tumor cells. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1535–44.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      Agrawal B, Krantz MJ, Parker J, et al. Expression of MUC1 mucin on activated human T cells: implications for a role of MUC1 in normal immune regulation. Cancer Res 1998;58:4079–81.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      Chittal S, Al Saati T, Delsol G. Epithelial membrane antigen in hematolymphoid neoplasms: a review. Applied Immunohistochemistry 1997;5:203–15.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    37. ↵
      Cordell J, Richardson TC, Pulford KAF, et al. Production of monoclonal antibodies against human epithelial membrane antigen for use in diagnostic immunocytochemistry. Br J Cancer 1985;52:347–54.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      Burchell J, Gendler JS, Taylor-Papadimitriou J, et al. Development and characterization of breast cancer reactive monoclonal antibodies directed to the core protein of the human milk mucin. Cancer Res 1987;47:5476–82.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    39. ↵
      Patton S, Gendler SJ, Spicer AP. The epithelial mucin, MUC1, of milk, mammary gland and other tissues. Biochem Biophys Acta 1995;1241:407–23.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      Guddo F, Giatromanolaki A, Patriarca C, et al. Depolarised expression of episialin (EMA, MUC1) in lung adenocarcinoma is associated with tumor progression. Anticancer Res 1998;18:1915–20.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    41. Dong Y, Walsh MD, Cummings MC, et al. Expression of MUC1 and MUC2 mucins in epithelial ovarian tumours. J Pathol 1997;183:311–17.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      Nakamori S, Ota DM, Cleary KR, et al. MUC1 mucin expression as a marker of progression and metastasis of human colorectal carcinoma. Gastroenterology 1994;106:353–61.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J, et al. World Health Organisation classification of neoplastic diseases of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues: report of the Clinical Advisory Committee meeting—Airlie House, Virginia, November 1997. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3835–49.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. ↵
      Falini B, Bigerna B, Fizzotti M, et al. ALK expression defines a distinct group of T/null lymphomas (“ALK lymphomas”) with a wide morphological spectrum. Am J Pathol 1998;153:875–86.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      Benharroch D, Meguerian-Bedoyan Z, Lamant L, et al. ALK-positive lymphoma: a single disease with a broad spectrum of morphology. Blood 1998;91:2076–84.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    46. ↵
      Hilkens J, Buijs F, Ligtenberg M. Complexity of MAM-6, an epithelial sialomucin associated with carcinomas. Cancer Res 1989;49:786–93.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    47. ↵
      Perey L, Hayes DF, Maimonis P, et al. Tumor selective reactivity of a monoclonal antibody prepared against a recombinant peptide derived from the DF3 human breast carcinoma associated antigen. Cancer Res 1992;52:2563–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    48. ↵
      Schol DJ, Meulenbroek MFA, Snijdewint FGM, et al. “Epitope fingerprinting” using overlapping 20-mer peptides of the MUC1 tandem repeat sequence. Tumor Biol 1998;19(suppl 1):35–45.
    49. ↵
      Leoncini L, Del Vecchio MT, Kraft R, et al. Hodgkin's disease and CD30-positive anaplastic large cell lymphomas—a continuous spectrum of malignant disorders: a quantitative morphometric and immunohistologic study. Am J Pathol 1990;137:1047–57.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    50. Hugh J, Poppema S. Immunophenotype of Reed-Sternberg cells. Int Rev Exp Pathol 1992;33:81–114.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    51. Pileri S, Bocchia M, Baroni CD, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (CD30+/Ki-1+): results of a prospective clinicopathological study of 69 cases. Br J Haematol 1994;86:513–23.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      Chittal SM, Caveriviere P, Schwarting R, et al. Monoclonal antibodies in the diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease: the search for a rational panel. Am J Surg Pathol 1988;12:9–21.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    53. ↵
      Felgar RE, Salhany KE, Macon WR, et al. The expression of TIA-1+ cytolytic-type granules and other cytolytic lymphocyte-associated markers in CD30+ anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCL): correlation with morphology, immunophenotype, ultrastructure, and clinical features. Hum Pathol 1999;30:228–36.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    54. Nakamura S, Shiota M, Nakagawa A, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma—a distinct molecular pathologic entity: a reappraisal with special reference to p80 (NPM/ALK) expression. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21:1420–32.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      Nakagawa A, Nakamura S, Ito M, et al. CD30-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma in childhood—expression of p80 (NPM/ALK) and absence of Epstein-Barr virus. Mod Pathol 1997;10:210–15.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      Chadburn A, Inghirami G, Knowles DM. T-cell activation-associated antigen expression by neoplastic T-cells. Hematol Pathol 1992;6:131–41.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    57. ↵
      Dukers DF, ten Berge RL, Oudejans JJ, et al. A cytotoxic phenotype does not predict clinical outcome in anaplastic large cell lymphomas. J Clin Pathol 1999;52:129–36.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    58. ↵
      Wesseling J, van der Valk SW, Hilkens J. A mechanism for inhibition of E-cadherin-mediated cell–cell adhesion by the membrane-associated mucin episialin/MUC1. Mol Biol Cell 1996;7:565–77.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    59. ↵
      Regimbald LH, Pilarski LM, Longenecker BM, et al. The breast mucin MUC1 as a novel adhesion ligand for endothelial intercellular adhesion molecule 1 in breast cancer. Cancer Res 1996;56:4244–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    60. ↵
      Von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, Verstraeten AA, Kenemans P, et al. Survival in early breast cancer patients is favorably influenced by a natural humoral immune response to polymorphic epithelial mucin (MUC1). J Clin Oncol 2000;18:574–83.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    61. ↵
      Jerome KR, Barnd DL, Bendt KM, et al. Cytotoxic T-lymphocytes derived from patients with breast adenocarcinoma recognize an epitope of the protein core of a mucin molecule preferentially expressed by malignant cells. Cancer Res 1991;51:2908–16.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    62. ↵
      Barnd DL, Lan MS, Metzgar RS, et al. Specific major histocompatibility complex-unrestricted recognition of tumor-associated mucins by human cytotoxic T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1989;86:7159–63.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    63. Takahashi T, Makiguchi Y, Hinoda Y, et al. Expression of MUC1 on myeloma cells and induction of HLA-unrestricted CTL against MUC1 from a multiple myeloma patient. J Immunol 1994;153:2102–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    64. Noto H, Takahashi T, Makiguchi Y, et al. Cytotoxic T lymphocytes derived from bone marrow mononuclear cells of multiple myeloma patients recognize an underglycosylated form of MUC1 mucin. Int Immunol 1997;9:791–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    65. ↵
      Hiltbold EM, Alter MD, Ciborowski P, et al. Presentation of MUC1 tumor antigen by class I MHC and CTL function correlate with the glycosylation state of the protein taken up by dendritic cells. Cell Immunol 1999;194:143–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    66. ↵
      Agrawal B, Krantz MJ, Reddish MA, et al. Cancer-associated MUC1 mucin inhibits human T-cell proliferation, which is reversible by IL-2. Nat Med 1998;4:43–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    67. ↵
      Chan AK, Lockhart DC, von Bernstorff W, et al. Soluble MUC1 secreted by human epithelial cancer cells mediates immune suppression by blocking T-cell activation. Int J Cancer 1999;82:721–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Footnotes

    • ↵* These authors contributed equally to this study.