Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Diagnostic implications of telomerase activity in pleural effusions

G. Dikmen, E. Dikmen, M. Kara, E. Şahin, P. Doğan, N. Özdemir
European Respiratory Journal 2003 22: 422-426; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.03.00001303
G. Dikmen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
E. Dikmen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Kara
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
E. Şahin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Doğan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N. Özdemir
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of telomerase activity for discrimination of malignant and benign pleural effusions.

Pleural effusions were collected from 109 consecutive patients in whom the diagnosis was confirmed with cytological and/or histological examinations. Cytological samples were classified as malignant (n=63) and benign (n=46). Telomerase activity was determined with the polymerase chain reaction-based telomeric repeat amplification protocol assay.

Telomerase activity was detected in 52 (82.5%) and nine (19.6%) samples from the malignant and benign groups, respectively, which was a significant difference. The sensitivity rate of cytological examination when combined with telomerase activity (92.1%) was significantly greater than that of cytological examination alone (53.9%). The sensitivity and specificity of telomerase activity were 82.5 and 80.4%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy of telomerase activity was 81.6%.

Telomerase activity is a highly sensitive diagnostic biomarker for malignancy and may be used as an adjunct to cytological findings in determining malignant pleural effusions.

  • pleural effusion
  • malignancy
  • telomerase

This study was supported by the Research Fund of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Hacettepe, Ankara, Turkey (project no. 1-01-02.101.021).

Pleural effusions with unknown aetiology are frequent and often create a dilemma in clinical practice. Although the diagnostic yield can reach up to 87% with more invasive thoracoscopic procedures, diagnosis of pleural effusions can be established in 33–72% of patients by conventional diagnostic methods 1–3. Numerous procedures, including immunocytochemistry, chromosome analysis, tissue culture techniques, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) flow or image cytometry, and cell imaging combined with immunocytochemistry have been proposed for the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions to improve the sensitivity of cytological examination 4. Despite these sophisticated diagnostic methods, definitive diagnosis of pleural effusions may still be difficult. In addition, the nature of pleural effusions is of particular importance in lung cancer patients and needs to be clarified, as a co-existing malignant pleural effusion implies an advanced stage, which precludes a possible surgical resection 5.

Telomeres are specialised structures at the ends of the chromosomes in eukaryotic cells that provide genomic stability and permit complete replication. They shorten with each cell division, resulting in cellular senescence, and they limit the reproductive capacity of the cell, which is thought to be the “biological clock” of the cell. Telomerase is a ribonucleoprotein that compensates the telomeric loss by synthesising telomeric DNA and is believed to play an important role in the development of malignancy 6. Telomerase expression has been shown in various human tumours and immortalised cell lines 7, 8. Furthermore, the assay of telomerase activity has been suggested to be a potential biomarker for cancer detection in body cavity fluids 4, 9. This study was conducted to determine the use oftelomerase expression in diagnosing malignant pleural effusions and the results were compared with those of the cytological examination.

Methods

Patients and pleural effusion samples

Pleural fluid samples were collected from 109 consecutive patients who underwent diagnostic or therapeutic thoracentesis in the Ibn-i Sina Hospital of Ankara University, Ankara, and in the Hospital of Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey, between January 2001 and March 2002. The patients included 69 males and 40 females with a mean age of 54.0±12.6 yrs (range 17–77 yrs). Diagnosis was confirmed with cytological and/or histological examinations. Cytological samples were classified as malignant or benign. The median follow-up of all patients was 13 months (range 7–22 months).

The malignant group consisted of 63 patients with malignant pleural effusion. The patients included 36 males and 27 females with a mean age of 56.1±12.0 yrs (range 17–72 yrs). Definitive diagnosis was confirmed with invasive procedures such as closed or thoracoscopic pleural biopsy in patients lacking definitive cytological diagnosis. The most common histological diagnosis was malignant mesothelioma in 20 (31.7%) patients, followed by 18 (28.5%) patients with lung cancer, 10 (15.8%) patients with metastatic breast cancer, 10 (15.8%) patients with metastatic ovarian cancer, three (4.7%) patients with metastatic pancreas cancer and two (3.1%) patients with malignant lymphoma. Of the 18 lung cancer patients, 16 had nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and two had small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (table 1⇓).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Characteristics of pleural effusions with respect to cytological features and telomerase activities

The benign group consisted of 46 patients with benign pleural effusion. The patients included 33 males and 13 females with a mean age of 51.0±12.9 yrs (range 26–77 yrs). Diagnosis was made on the basis of clinical and radiological features, response to therapy and cytological examinations of pleural fluids. In addition, diagnosis was confirmed in 24 patients with closed or thoracoscopic pleural biopsy and thoracotomy. None of the patients had co-existing or previous cancer disease and none developed malignancy during the follow-up period. Definitive diagnosis was parapneumonic empyema in 19 (41.3%) patients, congestive heart failure in 11 (23.9%) patients, post-traumatic effusion in five (10.8%) patients, tuberculosis in five (10.8%) patients, acute pancreatitis in four (8.6%) patients and nephrotic syndrome in two (4.3%) patients.

Determination of telomerase activity

Telomerase activity was determined with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based telomeric repeat amplification protocol (TRAP) assay. In this primer extension assay telomerase synthesises telomeric repeats onto oligonucleotide primers and the extension products then serve as the templates for PCR amplification 10.

The pleural effusion samples were transported to the laboratory within 3 h of collection. After centrifugation at 1,400×g for 10 min, the suspended cells were separated and washed twice with ice-cold 10 mM phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.4). The cell pellets (100 µL) were treated with 200 µL ice-cold CHAPS (3‐{[3‐chlomidopropyl]-dimethyl-ammonio}‐1‐propanesulfonate) lysis buffer including 0.5% CHAPS, 1 mM MgCl2, 5 mM β‐mercaptoethanol, 1 mM EGTA (ethylene glycol bis [β‐aminoethyl ether]‐N,N,N',N'‐tetraacetic acid), 0.1 mM AEBSF (4‐[2‐aminoethyl]-benzenesulfonyl fluoride hydrochlorine), 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5) and 10% glycerol. Samples were kept on ice for 30 min and then centrifuged at 13,000×g for 30 min at 4°C. Supernatants were removed carefully and the protein concentrations were determined by the Bradford method 11. The supernatant samples were diluted to a concentration of 3 µg·μL protein−1 with lysis buffer and stored at −70°C.

PCR-based TRAP assay, as described previously by Kim etal. 10 was used to measure telomerase activity. Two µL of supernatant (3 µg protein·μL−1) was added into a 43 µL reaction mix containing 50 µM dNTP, 0.1 µg TS primer (5′‐AATCCGTCGAGCAGAGTT‐3′) and 1×TRAP Buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.3), 1.5 mM MgCl2, 63 mM KCl, 0.005% Tween 20, 1 mM EGTA). Afterincubation for 30 min at room temperature (25°C),5 µL amplifying mix containing 0.1 µg CX primer (5′‐CCCTTACCCTTACCCTTACCCTAA‐3′) and 2 U Tag-DNA Polymerase (Epicentre Madison, WI, USA) were added into PCR tubes. Telomerase products were amplified in 33 PCR cycles at 94°C for 30 s, 50°C for 30 s and 72°C for 90 s in a thermal cycler (Perkin Elmer 2400; Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT, USA) with the hot start at 90°C for 90 s.

Thereafter, 20 µL of the PCR products were loaded onto a 12% polyacrylamide nondenaturing gel and resolved by electrophoresis at 200 V for 120 min in 0.5×Tris-borate-ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid buffer. The gels were stained with SYBR Green I nucleic acid gel stain (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA) for 30 min and visualised.

Evaluation of telomerase activity

The samples showing a ladder of products with a six base-pair increment were considered to be positive. An extractof 2 µL from each sample was treated with 1 µg deoxyribonuclease-free ribonuclease (RNase) at 37°C for 60 min prior to the TRAP assay and samples sensitive to RNase treatment were considered to contain telomerase activity. HeLa cells were used as positive controls, whereas CHAPS lysis buffer were used as negative controls (fig. 1⇓). Telomerase activity assays and cytological/histological examinations were performed independently in a blinded manner.

Fig. 1.—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.—

Detection of telomerase activity in the pleural effusion samples by telomeric repeat amplification protocol (TRAP) assay. Lane 1: marker (pUC 18 Msp I,26-SOlbp); Lane 2: positive control, HeLa cells; Lane 3: negative control (CHAPS lysis buffer); Lane 4: telomerase (+) metastatic ovarian cancer; Lane 5: telomerase (−) empyema; Lane 6: telomerase (+) lung cancer; Lane 7: telomerase (+) malignant mesothelioma; Lane 8: telomerase (+) lung cancer.

Statistical analysis

Results were analysed with the Chi-squared test. The sensitivities of cytological examination and telomerase activity were compared with the McNemar test in the malignant group. Data were expressed as mean±sd. A p‐value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Cytological examination confirmed the benign nature of all 46 (100%) samples in the benign group, however, cytological examination confirmed the malignant nature of 34 (53.9%) samples in the malignant group (p<0.0001). Telomerase activity was detected in 52 (82.5%) and nine (19.6%) samples from the malignant group and the benign group, respectively, which was a significant difference (p<0.0001) (fig. 2⇓). Among the samples with negative telomerase activity in the malignant group, four had NSCLC, two had malignant mesothelioma, two had metastatic breast cancer, one had metastatic ovarian cancer, one had metastatic pancreas cancer and one had malignant lymphoma. Among the samples with positive telomerase activity in the benign group, three had tuberculosis and six had empyema.

Fig. 2.—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.—

Positive (└) and negative (□) telomerase activity in benign and malignant pleural effusions. p<0.0001 when comparing the telomerase ratio between the benign and malignant groups.

Out of 29 pleural effusions without a definitive cytological diagnosis in the malignant group, 24 (82.8%) showed positive telomerase activity, whereas cytological examination was diagnostic in six (54.5%) out of 11 malignant samples with negative telomerase activity in the malignant group (p=0.002). The sensitivity and specificity rates for cytological examination were 53.9 and 100%, while these rates were 82.5 and 80.4% for telomerase activity, respectively. Diagnostic yield was achieved in 58 (92.1%) patients in the malignant group when cytological examination was combined with telomerase activity, whereas 34 (53.9%) of patients in the malignant group could be diagnosed with cytological examination alone, which was a significant difference (p<0.0001). Telomerase activity had a positive predictive value of 0.85 and negative predictive value of 0.77. Diagnostic accuracies of cytological examination and telomerase activity were 73.4 and 81.6%, respectively (table 2⇓).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Diagnostic values of telomerase activity and cytological examination

Discussion

Thoracentesis might be the first and most effective diagnostic procedure in the diagnosis of primary or metastatic pleural malignancy with pleural effusion. It may also provide some relief from the pulmonary compromise created by the restrictive effect of the effusion. The diagnostic methods applied to pleural effusions are cell count with differential cytology, direct examination and cultures for bacteria, fungi, acid-fast bacilli, lactate dehydrogenase and protein with fluid to serum ratios and glucose content 2. However, accurate diagnosis of pre-assumptive malign effusions may sometimes be difficult with these conventional methods.

Cytological diagnosis may be established in 53% of patients with a single thoracentesis, in 64% with two thoracenteses, in 69% with three thoracenteses and it may reach up to 72% with four or more independent samples 3. Similarly, the current data show that the rate of definitive cytological diagnosis obtained from single samples was 54% in malignant pleural effusions. Conversely, some malignancies, such as Hodgkin's disease, show a lesser rate of diagnostic cytology (23%), while the cytological diagnostic yield ranges 63–73% in lung, metastatic breast and ovarian cancers 12. Despite the fact that the overall rate for definitive cytological diagnosis was 54% in this study, cytological diagnostic yield was 66% in lung cancer and 60% in either metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, which is consistent with these findings.

Unless the diagnosis is apparent after the first thoracentesis, a second thoracentesis is indicated and should even be accompanied by closed pleural biopsy. However, pleural biopsy has a greater risk of complications than simple thoracentesis and should be reserved for more difficult cases in which the initial thoracentesis and cytological examination fails to yield a diagnosis 2. The diagnostic yield of pleural biopsy may reach up to 81–90% when combined with cytological examination, however, the diagnostic value of pleural biopsy alone is still not superior to that of cytology 3, 13. The current data revealed that the diagnostic accuracy of the combined methods was 95% and was significantly greater than that of either cytological examination alone (p<0.0001) or the above rate.

When two or more studies of the pleural fluid including closed pleural biopsy fail to provide a diagnosis, a more invasive procedure such as thoracoscopic biopsy is probably the optimal choice because it has a lower risk than thoracotomy and has a diagnostic yield of 87% 1. However, thoracoscopic procedures require general anaesthesia and have greater morbidity rates compared with a simple thoracentesis in this group of compromised patients with limited cardiorespiratory functions. Thus, new and less invasive approaches, possibly detection of a “tumour biomarker” should be developed as an alternative method to enhance the sensitivity of cytological examination in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions.

Numerous biomarkers have been investigated to differentiate malignant pleural effusions from benign pleural effusions. Among these, carcinoembryonic antigen appears to be the most sensitive biomarker, with a sensitivity rate ranging 25–57% 2, 14. Thus, more reliable biomarkers, such as the assay of telomerase activity, have been under investigation to detect malignancy in pleural effusions 4, 9. Telomerase is a reverse transcriptase enzyme that stabilises telomere length by adding hexameric (TTAGGG) repeats to the telomeric ends of the chromosomes by using its own ribonucleic acid (RNA) as a template and compensates thecontinued erosion of telomeres 15, 16. Telomerase expression has been detected in various human cancers suggesting that telomerase may be a marker for cellular immortalisation and may indicate the proliferation of tumour cells 7.

Recent data showed positive telomerase activity in >85% of various human malignancies with the use of the TRAP assay, as described previously by Kim et al. 10. Furthermore, telomerase expression has been shown to be a potential diagnostic biomarker in the fluids of body cavities, however, the present authors are aware of only a few reports investigating the telomerase activity with special reference to pleural effusions 6, 17. These reports showed that the sensitivity of telomerase activity in malignant pleural effusions were 67 and 91%, respectively. The current data revealed a similar rate of 82.5%, which falls between this range and is consistent with these reports. Thus, the authors may reasonably suggest that telomerase expression in pleural effusions is a highly sensitive diagnostic biomarker for malignancy.

The lack of telomerase activity in malignant pleural effusions was 17.5% in this study. False-negative results for telomerase activity may be attributed to several factors, such as Taq polymerase inhibitors (haemoglobine), RNAse and protease used in the sample 7, 18. In addition, telomerase activity is closely related to the number of malignant cells, and an adequate number of cells, such as 10,000–100,000 should be extracted from 30–50 mL samples 19. Hence, a low concentration of tumour cells in samples may also result in negative telomerase activity. Furthermore, the enzyme may be inactivated during the freezing and thawing procedures during tissue extraction 20.

Although low telomerase activity has been shown in mononuclear inflammatory cells and proliferative cells of renewal tissues (such as intestinal crypts, basal cells of the skin, hair follicles and endometrial cells), benign somatic cells usually do not show telomerase expression 6. Likewise, the rate of positive telomerase activity in nonmalignant cytological samples has been reported to be ∼10% in previous reports 9, 17, 21. Among the 46 benign samples, a total of nine (19.6%) samples, composed of six with empyema and three with tuberculosis effusions, showed telomerase expression in the present study. The intense infiltration of lymphocytes and leukocytes in tuberculosis effusions and empyemas, respectively, might explain the false-positive telomerase activity in these samples 22. However, the specificity of telomerase activity was 80.4% in the current study and this finding supports the proposal that telomerase activity is a reliable diagnostic method in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions.

As the conventional TRAP assay is insufficient for quantitative analysis and requires post-PCR manipulation, such as polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, it is laborious and time consuming. New techniques are needed for accurate quantification of telomerase activity in large-scale samples in a short time. In the real-time quantitative (RTQ)‐TRAP method, the PCR reaction and data analysis are done simultaneously. This makes the telomerase activity assay not only simpler and faster but also removes the carry-over contamination 23. Precise quantification of telomerase activity is required for the development of anti-telomerase therapy in the future.

In conclusion, telomerase expression is a highly sensitive diagnostic method for malignant pleural effusions. Diagnostic yield of malignant pleural effusions will significantly increase, provided that telomerase activity is used in conjunction with cytological examination in pleural malignancies. Further studies should be carried out to determine the accurate quantification of telomerase expression levels to identify the reference values for differentiation of malignant from benign pleural effusions.

  • Received January 7, 2003.
  • Accepted April 24, 2003.
  • © ERS Journals Ltd

References

  1. ↵
    Yim AP, Chung SS, Lee TW, Lam CK, Ho JK. Thoracoscopic management of malignant pleural effusions. Chest 1996;109:1234–1238.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    Hausheer FH, Yarbro JW. Diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural effusion. Sem Oncol 1985;12:54–75.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    Salyer WR, Eggleston JC, Erozan YS. Efficacy of pleural needle biopsy and pleural fluid cytopathology in the diagnosis of malignant neoplasm involving the pleura. Chest 1975;67:536–539.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    Braunschweig R, Yan P, Guilleret I, et al. Detection of malignant effusions: comparison of telomerase assay and cytological examination. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:174–180.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    Sawabata N, Matsumura A, Motohiro A, et al. Malignant minor pleural effusion detected on thoracotomy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: is tumor resection beneficial for prognosis?. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:412–415.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    Dejmek A, Yahata N, Ohyashiki K, et al. In situ telomerase activity in pleural effusions: a promising marker for malignancy. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:11–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    Shay JW, Wright WE. Telomerase activity in human cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 1996;8:66–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Lee JC, Jong HS, Yoo CG, Han SK, Shim YS, Kim YW. Telomerase activity in lung cancer cell lines and tissues. Lung Cancer 1998;21:99–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    Mu XC, Brien TP, Ross JS, Lowry CV, McKenna BJ. Telomerase activity in benign and malignant cytologic fluids. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1999;87:93–99.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    Kim NW, Piatyszek MA, Prowse KR, et al. Specific association of human telomerase activity with immortal cells and cancer. Science 1994;226:2011–2015.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Bradford MM. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 1976;77:248–254.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    Anderson CB, Philpott GW, Ferguson TB. The treatment of malignant pleural effusion. Cancer 1974;33:916–922.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    Winkelmann M, Pfitzer P. Blind pleural biopsy in combination with cytology of pleural effusions. Acta Cytol 1981;25:373–376.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Hernandez L, Espasa A, Fernandez C, Candela A, Martin C, Romero S. CEA and CA 549 in serum and pleural fluid ofpatients with pleural effusion. Lung Cancer 2002;36:83–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    Shay JW, Gazdar AF. Telomerase in the early detection of cancer. J Clin Pathol 1997;50:106–109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Moyzis RK, Buckingham JM, Cram LS, et al. A highly conserved repetitive DNA sequence (TTAGGG)n, present at the telomeres of human chromosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988;85:6622–6626.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Yang CT, Lee MH, Lan RS, Chen JK. Telomerase activity in pleural effusions: diagnostic significance. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:567–573.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  18. ↵
    Gollahon L, Holt SE. Alternative methods of extracting telomerase activity from human tumor samples. Cancer Lett 2000;159:141–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    Ramakumar S, Bhuiyan J, Besse JA, et al. Comparison of screening methods in the detection of bladder cancer. J Urol 1999;161:388–394.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    Zheng PS, Iwasaka T, Yamasaki F, et al. Telomerase activity in gynecologic tumors. Gynecol Oncol 1997;64:171–175.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    Cunningham VJ, Markham N, Shroyer AL, Shroyer KR. Detection of telomerase expression in fine needle aspirations and fluids. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:431–436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Hiyama K, Hirai Y, Koizumi S, et al. Activation of telomerase in human lymphocytes and hematopoietic progenitor cells. J Immunol 1995;155:3711–3715.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  23. ↵
    Hou M, Xu D, Bjorkholm M, Gruber A. Real-time quantitative telomeric repeat amplification protocol assay for the detection of telomerase activity. Clin Chem 2001;47:519–524.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 22 Issue 3 Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Diagnostic implications of telomerase activity in pleural effusions
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Diagnostic implications of telomerase activity in pleural effusions
G. Dikmen, E. Dikmen, M. Kara, E. Şahin, P. Doğan, N. Özdemir
European Respiratory Journal Sep 2003, 22 (3) 422-426; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.03.00001303

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Diagnostic implications of telomerase activity in pleural effusions
G. Dikmen, E. Dikmen, M. Kara, E. Şahin, P. Doğan, N. Özdemir
European Respiratory Journal Sep 2003, 22 (3) 422-426; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.03.00001303
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Medical thoracoscopy: hormone receptor content in pleural metastases due to breast cancer
  • Clinical prognostic indicators of high-grade pre-invasive bronchial lesions
  • Surfactant protein D in serum from patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis
Show more Original Articles: Bench to Bedside: Oncology

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society