4.0 Review

Spontaneous Primary Pleural Mesothelioma in Fischer 344 (F344) and Other Rat Strains: A Retrospective Review

期刊

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 167-175

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/01926233211053631

关键词

mesothelioma; rat; pleura; pericardium; Fischer 344; F344; Wistar Han

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [HHSN273201500014C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spontaneous primary pleural mesotheliomas are rarely reported in Fischer 344 (F344) or other rat strains. This retrospective study found a higher incidence in F344 rats and observed only epithelioid and biphasic histologic subtypes.
Spontaneous primary pleural mesotheliomas in Fischer 344 (F344) or other rat strains have rarely been reported. The objectives of this retrospective study were to develop historical incidence data and better characterize the light-microscopic morphology of these naturally occurring neoplasms in a large cohort of rats of several strains. A retrospective review was performed of National Toxicology Program (NTP) studies in rats conducted between 1980 and 2019 and comprising a total of 104,029 rats (51,326 males, 52,703 females), predominantly (90%) of the F344 strain. Of the 94,062 F344 rats surveyed, there were 30 cases of primary pleural mesotheliomas (22 males, 8 females). Of the 2998 Wistar Han rats surveyed, primary pleural mesotheliomas were present in 2 male rats. No primary pleural mesotheliomas were noted in male and female rats of other strains (6669 Sprague Dawley; 300 Osborne-Mendel). All primary pleural mesotheliomas in control and treated F344 and Wistar Han rats were considered spontaneous and unrelated to treatment. Based on light-microscopic evaluation of paraffin-embedded hematoxylin and eosin stained sections, only epithelioid and biphasic histologic subtypes were observed: 18 and 12 in F344 rats, respectively, and one each in Wistar Han rats. No sarcomatoid subtype cases were noted in any strain of rat.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据