Utility of the antibodies CA 19-9, HBME-1, and thrombomodulin in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma in cytology

Immunocytochemistry of effusion fluids: Introduction to SCIP approach

Due to the remarkably wide morphologic spectrum of reactive mesothelial cells, some of the effusion fluids may be difficult to interpret with objective certainty by cytomorphology alone. Cytomorphology of well to moderately differentiated adenocarcinomas (responsible for the bulk of malignant effusions) may overlap with floridly reactive mesothelial cells. Even mesotheliomas including diffuse malignant epithelioid mesothelioma, are usually cytomorphologically bland without unequivocal features of malignancy. The intensity of challenge depends on the interpreter's training or experience level, institutional demographics of patients (such as type of prevalent diseases, predominant sex and age group), technical support, and quality of cytopreparatory processing. In general immunocytochemistry is valuable adjunct to facilitate objective interpretation with or without other ancillary techniques as indicated. An increasing number of immunomarkers is further refining the contribution of immunohistochemistry to this field. However, application of immunohistochemistry to effusion fluids is relatively challenging because of many variables. Multiple factors such as delay after specimen collection, specimen processing related factors including fixation and storage; ambient conditions under which paraffin blocks are archived (for retrospective testing); antigen retrieval method; duration of antigen retrieval step; antibody clone and dilution; and antibody application time are identical to application of immunohistochemistry in other areas. The significant challenge related to the potential compromization of the immunoreactivity pattern due to exposure to non-formalin fixatives / reagents is also applicable to effusion fluid specimens. The immunoreactivity results would be compared and corelated with cumulative metadata based on the reported studies performed and validated on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections. Deviating from such protocols may lead to suboptimal results, which is not uncommon in clinical practice with potential compromization of patient care and related liability. Because of this, it is critical to perform immunocytochemistry on formalin-fixed cell-block sections only. In addition, unless the interpretation criteria for immunohistochemical evaluation of effusion fluids are not modified specifically, it may not be productive in resolving some challenging cases. However, this aspect is not well elaborated in the literature. A basic and critical challenge is finding and locating the cells of interest in cell-block sections of effusion fluids. A unique approach is to choose a fundamental immunopanel which highlight the mesothelial and inflammatory cells in reactive effusion fluids to create the basic map. This allows detection of a 'second-foreign' population which can be immunocharacterized further with the help of subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern (SCIP) approach elaborated here.

Immunocytochemistry of effusions: Processing and commonly used immunomarkers

Definitive cytopathological interpretation of some of the effusion fluids may not be possible based on cytomorphological evaluation alone. As discussed in other reviews, this is due to various reasons specifically applicable to effusion fluids including remarkably wide morphologic spectrum of reactive mesothelial cells overlapping with some well to moderately differentiated metastatic carcinoma. The challenge is subject to various factors including level of interpreter training or experience, institutional demographics (such as type of prevalent diseases, predominant sex and age group), technical advances in ancillary support, and expertise in cytopreparatory processing. In such cases immunohistochemistry performed on cell-block sections is simple objective adjunct with or without other ancillary techniques. Ongoing increase in number of immunomarkers along with rabbit monoclonal antibodies with relatively higher affinity is further refining this field. SCIP (subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern) approach, discussed as separate dedicated review article, facilitates refined interpretation of immunoreactivity pattern in coordinate manner on various serial sections of cell-blocks. However, many variables such as delay after specimen collection, specimen processing related factors including fixation and storage; ambient conditions under which paraffin blocks are archived (for retrospective testing); antigen retrieval method; duration of antigen retrieval step; antibody clone and dilution; and antibody application time are common with application of immunohistochemistry in other areas. This review is dedicated to highlight technical aspects including processing of effusion specimens for optimum immunocytochemical evaluation along with commonly used immunomarkers in effusion cytopathology. This review focuses on the technical and general information about various immunomarkers.

Immunochemistry in the work-up of mesothelioma and its differential diagnosis and mimickers

The differential diagnosis in cellular effusions with cytological atypia often includes malignant mesothelioma (MM), reactive mesothelial proliferation, and malignancies of metastatic origin, particularly carcinomas. The International Reporting System for Serous Fluid recently established guidelines for reporting MM. In conjunction with the cytomorphologic evaluation, the role of immunochemistry (IC) was emphasized as a very useful tool in the workup of serous fluids, especially with the availability of novel markers. Utilizing a panel of markers, IC allows the characterization of the cells, whether mesothelial or not, and when mesothelial origin is established, IC can frequently assist in delineating its benign or malignant nature. IC can also confirm metastatic disease, allowing the identification of the primary origin in most cases. This review summarizes the current status of IC and its role in the diagnosis of MM and its differential diagnosis in serous fluids.

Vasculogenic mimicry in malignant mesothelioma: an experimental and immunohistochemical analysis

Vasculogenic mimicry, the process in which cancer cells form angiomatoid structures independent of or in addition to host angiogenesis has been recorded in several otherwise non-endothelial malignant neoplasms. This study describes evidence of routine vascular mimicry by human mesothelioma cell lines in vitro, when the cell lines are cultured alone or co-cultured with human umbilical vascular endothelial cells, with the formation of angiomatoid tubular networks. Vasculogenic mimicry is also supported by immunohistochemical demonstration of human-specific anti-mitochondria antibody labelling of tumour-associated vasculature of human mesothelioma cells xenotransplanted into nude mice, and by evidence of vascular mimicry in some biopsy samples of human malignant mesotheliomas. These studies show mosaic interlacing of cells that co-label or label individually for immunohistochemical markers of endothelial and mesothelial differentiation. If vascular mimicry in mesothelioma can be characterised more fully, this may facilitate identification of more specific and targeted therapeutic approaches such as anti-angiogenesis in combination with chemotherapy and immunotherapy or other therapeutic approaches.

Diagnostic performance of CD66c in lung adenocarcinoma-associated malignant pleural effusion: comparison with CEA, CA 19-9, and CYFRA 21-1

Various tumour markers have been evaluated in malignant pleural effusions, but not CD66c. This study evaluated the diagnostic ability of CD66c in lung adenocarcinoma-associated malignant pleural effusions (LA-MPEs) and compared it with other known tumour markers. Forty-seven cases of LA-MPE and 52 cases of benign pleural effusions were collected. The levels of CD66c, CEA, CA 19-9, and CYFRA 21-1 were measured by enzyme immunoassay. The expression of CD66c, CEA, and CA 19-9 in cell blocks was measured by immunocytochemistry. CEA had the best diagnostic values, with a sensitivity of 87.2% and specificity of 92.3%. Both CD66c and CA 19-9 showed the highest specificity of 98.1%, with sensitivities of 63.8% and 55.3%, respectively. CYFRA 21-1 had a sensitivity of 83.0% and specificity of 76.9%. CEA combined with CA 19-9 reached a sensitivity of 91.5% and a specificity of 98.1%. The sensitivities of immunocytochemical staining for CD66c, CEA, and CA 19-9 were 72.5%, 75%, and 40%, respectively. CD66c showed a diagnostic performance comparable to CYFRA 21-1 and CA 19-9 by enzyme immunoassay. Immunocytochemical study showed that CD66c and CEA were more sensitive than CA19-9. Both studies support CD66c as a potential tumour marker to differentiate LA-MPE from benign effusions.

HAb18G (CD147), a cancer-associated biomarker and its role in cancer detection

AIMS

To evaluate HAb18G/CD147 as a cancer-associated biomarker using its monoclonal antibody HAb18.

METHODS AND RESULTS

On immunohistochemical analysis of 28 tissue microarrays and pathological sections of 1117 breast tissue samples, HAb18G/CD147 was expressed in carcinoma with an overall positivity rate of 67.76%, which was significantly higher than that in sarcomas (27.34%, P < 0.0001) and normal epithelial (5.18%, P < 0.0001) and fetal (2.67%, P < 0.0001) tissues. In epithelial tissues from 14 organs, the difference in HAb18G/CD147 expression between normal epithelium and the corresponding carcinoma was also significant (P < 0.05 for each pair). This expression in carcinoma was also found at the mRNA level, suggesting transcriptional level regulation of HAb18G/CD147 expression. In a retrospective study of 106 patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast, the level of HAb18G/CD147 expression was positively correlated with tumour recurrence/metastasis (P = 0.0003) and negatively correlated with survival of breast cancer patients (P = 0.002). Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that HAb18G/CD147 was an independent prognostic factor.

CONCLUSIONS

HAb18G/CD147 is significantly expressed in various cancers and appears to have prognostic significance, rendering it a possible cancer-associated biomarker for pathological diagnosis, prognostic evaluation, targeted therapy and radioimmunoimaging of a broad range of cancer types.

Macroscopic, Histologic, Histochemical, Immunohistochemical, and Ultrastructural Features of Mesothelioma

Mesotheliomas are uncommon neoplasms that arise from the cells forming the serosal membranes of the body cavities. Approximately 90-95% of mesotheliomas arise in the pleural cavity and 5-10% in the peritoneal cavity. Rare mesotheliomas arise in the pericardium and in the tunica vaginalis. Unlike many neoplasms, mesotheliomas grow in a diffuse distribution and tend to encase the organs in the various body cavities. A combination of histochemical, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural features are often necessary to accurately diagnose mesotheliomas. These techniques are highlighted in this review article on mesothelioma.

Evaluation of CA19-9 as a tumor marker in urothelial malignancy

OBJECTIVE

Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) is known to be a marker with a high positive rate in pancreatic cancer. There are limited data on the use of CA19-9 as a tumor marker in bladder carcinoma. We tested the expression of CA19-9 in transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) cell lines and bladder cancer patients to determine its usefulness in clinical applications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The expression of CA19-9 was determined in six TCC cell lines and 42 bladder carcinoma tissues using two approaches: immunohistochemistry and enzyme immunoassay (EIA) analysis. EIA was used for testing CA19-9 levels in spent medium of cultured TCC cells and the urine of bladder tumor patients.

RESULTS

The CA19-9 value was low in spent media of the MGH-U1, MGH-U1R and MGH-U3 cell lines, but high in that of reactivity in MGH-U4 cells, while negative reactivity was found in high-grade MGH-U1 and MGH-U1R cells, both of which were derived from a stage B, grade 3 TCC. High incidences of negative CA19-9 staining were found in high-grade and invasive tumor tissues: 69.6% (16/23) and 70.8% (17/24), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of urinary CA19-9 for detecting tumor recurrence were 83.3% and 50.8%, respectively. However, urinary tract infection also resulted in a high false-positive rate.

CONCLUSION

CA19-9 is promising for use as a biomarker for the detection and monitoring of low-grade and low-stage bladder cancer, with the proviso that patients to be tested should be free of infection.

Challenges in the interpretation of peritoneal cytologic specimens

CONTEXT

The presence of malignant cells in peritoneal washings leads to classification as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC or higher in ovarian carcinomas and at least International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIA in endometrial carcinomas. Unfortunately, the morphologic examination of cytologic specimens has not proven to be a sensitive or specific diagnostic tool. Malignant cells might be few in number and might be unrecognized among a large population of mesothelial cells and/or macrophages, or reactive mesothelial cells might be misinterpreted as neoplastic cells leading to unnecessary chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the main pitfalls in the evaluation of peritoneal washings in patients with gynecologic malignancies and analyze the ancillary studies that might be helpful to achieve the correct diagnosis with an emphasis on immunocytochemistry.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Peritoneal effusions may represent major challenges to the pathologist and can have important clinical implications. Immunostains for epithelial markers such as B72.3, MOC-31, and Ber-EP4 represent the best available markers to identify epithelial cells. Caution is advised to not overdiagnose endometriosis or endosalpingiosis as adenocarcinoma.

Application of immunohistochemistry to gynecologic pathology

CONTEXT

A large variety of tumors and lesions arise in the female genital tract. Although the majority of these can be correctly recognized on routine hematoxylin-eosin-stained slides, occasional cases present a diagnostic challenge. Immunohistochemical stains are extremely useful in resolving many of these problematic cases. As the knowledge in this area is constantly expanding, it is useful to have this updated information in a review form for easy access.

OBJECTIVE

To present our current knowledge of immunohistochemistry of the lesions of the female genital tract in a readily accessible form.

DATA SOURCES

The review is based on previously published articles on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunohistochemical stains help in reaching a conclusive diagnosis in a variety of problematic lesions seen in gynecologic pathology. As in any other system, immunohistochemical findings need to be interpreted in light of the clinical history and morphologic findings.

Use of mesothelin as a marker for mesothelial cells in cytologic specimens

Immunocytochemistry is often employed for the distinction between mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma. Mesothelin has recently been reported to be expressed in reactive mesothelial cells and epithelioid mesotheliomas. The objective of this study is to determine the utility of mesothelin as marker for mesothelial cells in cytologic preparations. Thirty cell blocks were retrieved from the archives and immunostained with monoclonal antibody directed against mesothelin and calretinin. Heat-induced epitope retrieval technique was employed, and the immunostaining was accomplished using an automated stainer. These tissue blocks were from 35 patients (17 females and 18 males) with a median age of 64 years. Nine were benign effusions, 11 mesotheliomas, and 18 metastatic adenocarcinomas. The presence of any immunoreactivity, irrespective of level of intensity or percentage of cells, was considered positive for mesothelin expression. Follow up included correlation with pathology materials obtained at surgery and review of medical records. Mesothelin staining was positive in 7/9 benign cases, 8/11 mesotheliomas, and 8/18 adenocarcinomas. The difference of mesothelin expression between mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma was statistically significant. For calretinin, all cases, except 2 malignant mesotheliomas and 3 adenocarcinomas, showed positive staining with calretinin. As a marker for mesothelial cells, the sensitivity and specificity of mesothelin were 73% and 55%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of calretinin were 95% and 86%, respectively. Therefore, mesothelin is not a sensitive or a specific marker for mesothelial cells in cytologic specimens when compared with calretinin.

Ber-EP4 and anti-calretinin antibodies: a useful combination for differential diagnosis of various histological types of ovarian cancer cells and mesothelial cells

The differential diagnosis between reactive mesothelial cells and ovarian carcinoma cells is often difficult in cytologic specimens. Immunocytochemical procedures have been utilized in assisting this differential diagnosis, with limitations. Furthermore, previous studies examined only serous type but not other histological types of ovarian carcinoma cases. Therefore, we evaluated the practical value of various epithelial and mesothelial markers in differential diagnosis of these two types of cells. Various types of ovarian carcinoma (serous, n = 22; mucinous, n = 10; endometrioid, n = 7; clear cell, n = 10) and benign mesothelial tissues (n = 15) were studied by immunohistochemistry. We then studied effective panels of antibodies by immunohistochemistry in 43 cytologic specimens of ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid consisting of 20 reactive mesothelium and 23 adenocarcinomas of the ovary. In the tissue specimens, Ber-EP4, a monoclonal antibody of epithelial antigen, and a polyclonal antibody against calretinin, which is expressed in mesothelium, are used in differentiating reactive mesothelial cells from ovarian carcinoma. In cytologic specimens, the sensitivity and specificity of Ber-EP4 were 100% and 90%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the anti-calretinin antibody were 90% and 91%, respectively. Using multiple regression analysis, the correlation coefficient between epithelial antigen and calretinin reactivity was r = 0.938, with a significance level of p < 0.0001. In conclusion, the combined immunostaining of cytologic specimens for Ber-EP4 and the anti-calretinin antibody is helpful for the differential diagnosis between mesothelial cells and not only serous type, but also mucinous, endometrioid and clear cell types of ovarian cancer cells.

The combination of CEA, EMA, and BerEp4 and hyaluronan analysis specifically identifies 79% of all histologically verified mesotheliomas causing an effusion

A previously tested antibody panel identified three criteria of major importance for distinguishing between mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma (ACA): carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), BerEp4, and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) accentuated at the cell membrane. An extended panel, consisting of CEA, BerEp4, EMA, vimentin, mesothelioma antibody (HBME-1), thrombomodulin, Ca125, and sialyl-Tn was applied to effusions from 86 ACAs and 21 mesotheliomas. The specificities and sensitivities of the previously identified reactivity patterns were tested on the new material and the effect of the added antibodies was evaluated. Further, hyaluronan analysis was added as a parameter. The previously selected criteria remained fully predictive for mesothelioma and ACA, respectively, also in the extended material (in all, 139 ACAs and 57 mesotheliomas). With the addition of the hyaluronan value, 79% of the cases was identified with 100% specificity. Among the new antibodies sialyl-Tn seemed the most promising because it specifically identified ACAs not expressing CEA.

Comparison of three cytologic preparation methods and immunocytochemistries to distinguish adenocarcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in serous effusion

We assessed whether a panel of seven antibodies is useful in the differentiation of adenocarcinoma cells (ACCs) from reactive mesothelial cells (RMCs) in effusion samples and to determine optimal specimen preparation conditions for immunocytochemical analysis of effusion samples. Immunocytochemistry (ICC) was performed on three types of effusion preparations from the same effusion specimens: ethanol-fixed smears, ethanol-fixed cell-blocks, and formalin-fixed cell-blocks. Commercially available antibodies MOC-31, Ber-EP4, CA19-9, CEA, EMA, CA125, and HBME-1 were tested on RMCs from four samples of various etiology and 15 samples of adenocarcinoma from various primary sites. Ethanol-fixed smears showed strong immunoreactivity to all antibodies tested. The immunoreactivity of ethanol-fixed and formalin-fixed cell-blocks was significantly lower with all antibodies except CA19-9. Smear preparations are more sensitive than cell-blocks for immunocytochemical study. A panel of antibodies MOC-31, Ber-EP4, CA19-9, and CEA appears to be suitable to distinguish between ACCs and RMCs.

Serous effusions: diagnosis of malignancy beyond cytomorphology. An analytic review

In this brief review, the role of various ancillary techniques to detect malignancy in effusion fluid are evaluated and discussed. The data were collected from a large number of research articles published in various medical journals. The role of these techniques to increase the diagnostic accuracy in serous effusions is emphasised.

The immunohistochemical diagnosis of mesothelioma: a comparative study of epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma

A large number of immunohistochemical markers that can facilitate the distinction between epithelioid pleural mesotheliomas and pulmonary peripheral adenocarcinomas have recently become available. The aim of this study is to compare the value of these new markers with others that are already commonly used for this purpose and to determine which are, at present, the best for discriminating between these malignancies. Sixty epithelioid mesotheliomas and 50 lung adenocarcinomas were investigated for expression of the following markers: calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, WT1, thrombomodulin, mesothelin, CD44S, HBME-1, N-cadherin, E-cadherin, MOC-31, thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1), BG-8 (Lewisy), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Ber-EP4, B72.3 (TAG-72), leu-M1 (CD15), CA19-9, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), and vimentin. All (100%) of the mesotheliomas reacted for calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, and mesothelin, 93% for WT1, 93% for EMA, 85% for HBME-1, 77% for thrombomodulin; 73% for CD44S, 73% for N-cadherin, 55% for vimentin, 40% for E-cadherin, 18% for Ber-EP4, 8% for MOC-31, 7% for BG-8, and none for CEA, B72.3, leu-M1, TTF-1, or CA19-9. Of the adenocarcinomas, 100% were positive for MOC-31, Ber-EP4, and EMA, 96% for BG-8, 88% for CEA, 88% for E-cadherin, 84% for B72.3, 74% for TTF-1, 72% for leu-M1, 68% for HBME-1, 48% for CD44S, 48% for CA19-9, 38% for mesothelin, 38% for vimentin, 30% for N-cadherin, 14% for thrombomodulin, 8% for calretinin, 2% for cytokeratin 5/6, and none for WT1. After analyzing the results, it is concluded that calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, and WT1 are the best positive markers for differentiating epithelioid malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The best discriminators among the antibodies considered to be negative markers for mesothelioma are CEA, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, BG-8, and B72.3. A panel of four markers (two positive and two negative) selected based upon availability and which ones yield good staining results in a given laboratory is recommended. Because of their specificity and sensitivity for mesotheliomas, the best combination appears to be calretinin and cytokeratin 5/6 (or WT1) for the positive markers and CEA and MOC-31 (or B72.3, Ber-EP4, or BG-8) for the negative markers. An extensive and detailed review of the literature is also provided.

Specificity of MOC-31 and HBME-1 immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and malignant mesothelioma: a study on environmental malignant mesothelioma cases from Turkish villages

Histological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) and differentiation from adenocarcinoma is often difficult. A number of clinical, radiologic, histologic and histochemical criteria have been used as diagnostic aids, but most cases cannot be readily classified on the basis of these characteristics. In recent years, a panel of immunohistochemical anti-bodies have been increasingly applied for the differential diagnosis of these two tumors. MOC-31 has been recently used as specific for adenocarcinomas while reacting with a minimal number of benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations, and HBME-1 has also been presented as a mesothelial cell marker. In this study, we aimed to show the importance of these two antibodies among the environmental MM cases from Southeastern Turkey. Fifty five cases of MM and twenty adenocarcinomas were included in this study. Histochemical (PAS, PAS-D, mucicarmine) and immunohistochemical (Keratin, EMA,CEA, MOC-31, HBME-1) stains have been performed on each case. Keratin was positive in all cases. EMA stained 50 of 55 MM and all the adenocarcinoma cases. According to our results, dPAS, mucicarmen, CEA and MOC-31 positivity was statistically significant in the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma whereas HBME-1 was demonstrable in most MM cases (52/55) and 11 adenocarcinoma cases. This study confirmed that in the diagnostic distinction between MM and adenocarcinoma, immuno-histochemistry is an important diagnostic tool, however, a panel of antibodies must be used rather than any single antibody. HBME-1 should be included in this panel; MOC-31 can be used where CEA is not available or to doublecheck the reactivity of this antibody.

Immunohistochemical diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas: a critical review of old markers, new markers

Numerous new immunohistochemical markers that can be used in the diagnosis of mesothelioma have recently become available. As a result, new panels of antibodies that could be useful for distinguishing between epithelioid mesotheliomas and adenocarcinomas have been proposed. However, great differences of opinion exist regarding the individual value of some of these markers, especially when compared with those whose value has already been established. This article provides a critical review of the currently available information on those markers that could be useful in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas or whose utility remains controversial. A practical approach to the diagnosis of these tumors is also provided.

Malignant mesothelioma of the pericardium: case reports and immunohistochemical studies including Ki-67 expression

Pericardial malignant mesothelioma (PMM) is extremely rare compared with pleural cases of mesothelioma. We present the clinical and pathological features of three autopsy cases with PMM. All three cases showed rapid progress and died of heart failure. Detailed examination was obtained from the autopsy. Macroscopic appearances of each case showed a thickened pericardium due to tumor invasion. Microscopic observations of all cases led to a diagnosis of epithelial-type malignant mesothelioma (MM). The results of immunohistochemical examinations were similar to the previous published work on pleural mesothelioma. To disclose the pathological characteristics of PMM, we analyzed Ki-67 labeling index (LI) of three cases of PMM and five cases of pleural MM that died within 2 years. The difference of Ki-67 LI between PMM and pleural MM was not significant (P > 0.05). The poor prognosis of patients with PMM must be caused by restricted cardiac wall motion due to tumor involvement, in addition to the tumor proliferation itself.

Immunohistochemistry in the distinction between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma: a critical evaluation of new antibodies

AIM

The value of immunohistochemical staining in differentiating between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma was re-examined using newly available commercial antibodies, with the aim of increasing the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis, and simplifying the antibody panel required.

METHODS

Forty one malignant mesotheliomas and 35 lung adenocarcinomas were studied. Commercial antibodies to calretinin, E-cadherin, N-cadherin, surfactant apoprotein A (SP-A), thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1), thrombomodulin, and cytokeratin 5/6 were applied using the streptavidin-biotin-peroxidase complex procedure on formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded tissue.

RESULTS

E-cadherin was expressed in all adenocarcinomas and in 22% of the mesotheliomas. TTF-1 expression was detected in 69% of the adenocarcinomas and none of the mesotheliomas. Positive staining with polyclonal anticalretinin was detected in 80% of the mesotheliomas and 6% of the adenocarcinomas. N-cadherin was expressed in 78% of mesotheliomas and 26% of adenocarcinomas. Thrombomodulin was expressed in 6% of the adenocarcinomas and in 53% of the mesotheliomas. Cytokeratin 5/6 expression was detected in 6% of the adenocarcinomas and 63% of the mesotheliomas. The results were compared with the standard laboratory panel for mesothelioma diagnosis: anticarcinoembryonic antigen (anti-CEA), LeuM1, BerEP4, and HBME-1.

CONCLUSION

Of the antibodies used in this study, E-cadherin was 100% sensitive for pulmonary adenocarcinoma and TTF-1 was 100% specific for pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The application of these two antibodies alone was adequate for the diagnosis of 69% of adenocarcinomas and 78% of mesotheliomas. Where TTF-1 is negative and E-cadherin is positive, a secondary panel of antibodies, including BerEP4 and LeuM1 (CD15) and antibodies directed against CEA, calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, and N-cadherin, is required for differentiation between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

Comparison of three commonly used cytologic preparations in effusion immunocytochemistry

Discrepant results in effusion immunocytochemistry are often the result of specimen processing. Smears, cytospins, cell blocks, and monolayer preparations have all been used in various published studies; thus, there is no consistency in the immunostaining process for cytology to compare with the surgical pathology "gold standard" results. We sought to evaluate optimal specimen preparation for the immunostaining of effusion samples. Fourteen reactive and 15 malignant effusion samples (various epithelial/mesothelial neoplasms) were each prepared in three forms: air-dried cytospins (postfixed in ethanol), formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cell blocks, and liquid-based thin-layer (ThinPrep, CYTYC, Boxborough, MA) processing. All slides were immunostained with antibodies commonly used in effusion cytology: HBME-1, calretinin, E-cadherin, BerEP4, B72.3, LeuM1, and CA19-9. Cytospin and ThinPrep samples performed in a similar manner: high background staining was encountered in 66% of cases, most evident in three-dimensional clusters of cells. In addition, membrane staining patterns were difficult to interpret. Cell blocks provided the best milieu for morphologic interpretation, with less background staining (only 17% of cases) and results that most closely approximated those reported in the surgical pathology literature. The cost per test for cell block immunocytochemistry was also the most economical for our laboratory.

The role of desmin and N-cadherin in effusion cytology: a comparative study using established markers of mesothelial and epithelial cells

The objective of the present study was to analyze the role of the mesothelial markers desmin and N-cadherin in the diagnostic panel of serous effusions. A total of 181 pleural and peritoneal effusions consisted of 101 cases cytologically diagnosed as malignant (89 carcinomas, 12 mesotheliomas), 78 benign, and 2 inconclusive specimens. All specimens were immunostained using 11 antibodies, against epithelial membrane antigen, Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen, E-cadherin, CA 125, N-cadherin, desmin, calretinin, p53, vimentin, and CD45. After evaluation of immunocytochemistry results, 110 specimens were diagnosed as malignant (98 carcinomas, 12 mesotheliomas) and 71 as benign (56 cellular, 15 paucicellular). The presence of desmin was detected in benign mesothelial cells in 47 of 56 (84%) reactive cellular specimens compared with 1 of 12 (8%) malignant mesotheliomas and 2 of 98 (2%) carcinomas. N-cadherin was expressed in 48 of 56 (86%) reactive cases, 12 of 12 (100%) mesotheliomas, and 47 of 98 (48%) carcinomas. In carcinomas, N-cadherin expression was most often seen in ovarian carcinoma but was also found in other carcinomas. Calretinin, an established marker of mesothelial cells, was detected in 52 of 56 (93%) reactive specimens, 11 of 12 (93%) mesotheliomas, and 3 of 98 (3%) carcinomas. Evaluation of staining results led to reclassification of six malignant specimens as benign, whereas 17 cases diagnosed as benign and the two diagnosed as inconclusive were classified as malignant. In conclusion, desmin appears to be a promising marker for the distinction between reactive mesothelium and malignant epithelial cells in terms of both specificity and sensitivity, and its complementary use with calretinin is recommended. Unlike calretinin, it may also prove valuable for the distinction between benign and malignant mesothelial cells. N-cadherin does not have a role in the distinction between mesothelial and epithelial cells. However, it may prove useful in the characterization of carcinomas of unknown origin. As has previously been shown, a significant number of diagnoses that are based on morphologic examination alone are modified after the use of a broad antibody panel.

Use of a panel of markers in the differential diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells in fluid cytology

To evaluate the use of a panel of markers to differentiate adenocarcinoma and the reactive/inflammatory process in fluid cytology, we stained 29 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cell blocks of effusion fluid from patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma and 24 cell blocks from patients with benign effusion with mucicarmine and antibodies to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), B72.3, and calretinin. Positive staining with CEA, B72.3, and mucicarmine was seen in 22 (76%), 20 (69%), and 18 (62%) adenocarcinoma cases, respectively. All except 1 adenocarcinoma was negative for calretinin. No benign cases were positive for B72.3 and mucicarmine. In 1 benign case, scattered epithelial cells demonstrated weak positivity for CEA. The majority of combinations were 100% specific for adenocarcinoma. The highest sensitivity (86%) for adenocarcinomas was achieved with the staining combination of negative for calretinin and positive for any adenocarcinoma marker (CEA, B72.3, or mucicarmine). The use of a panel of markers that recognize adenocarcinoma and mesothelial cells is useful in the differential diagnosis between metastatic adenocarcinoma and the reactive/inflammatory process. The profile of positive staining with at least one of the adenocarcinoma markers and negative calretinin staining is highly specific and sensitive for identifying adenocarcinoma in fluid cytology.

Immunohistochemical analysis of nuclear versus cytoplasmic staining of WT1 in malignant mesotheliomas and primary pulmonary adenocarcinomas

CONTEXT

Previous studies have indicated certain immunohistochemical markers, including WT1, may be helpful in distinguishing adenocarcinomas from mesotheliomas, but to date there are no reliable, widely accepted, commercially available antibodies positive in mesotheliomas and negative in adenocarcinomas. We compared the nuclear and cytoplasmic staining patterns of WT1 in these 2 malignancies using a commercially available antibody and examined the expression of 2 other previously reported positive markers, calretinin and thrombomodulin.

METHODS

Sixty-seven mesotheliomas and 51 adenocarcinomas, all paraffin embedded, were retrieved from recent case files. The diagnosis of mesothelioma was based on typical clinical and morphologic features, as well as immunohistochemistry; electron microscopy had been performed on 16 cases. The diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was based on typical light microscopic findings and a positive stain for mucin. Commercially available antibodies to WT1, thrombomodulin, and calretinin were applied. Because of the conflict surrounding calretinin, 2 anticalretinin antibodies (from Chemicon Inc and Zymed Laboratories) were utilized.

RESULTS

Fifty of 67 mesotheliomas showed strong nuclear staining with WT1. No adenocarcinomas (0/51) showed nuclear staining. Twenty-three of 67 mesotheliomas were positive for thrombomodulin, and 35 of 67 mesotheliomas were positive for calretinin with the Chemicon antibody. Nine of 15 mesotheliomas were positive for calretinin with the Zymed antibody.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombomodulin and calretinin did not prove useful in discriminating between mesotheliomas and adenocarcinomas. The degree of positivity with calretinin may be dependent on the specific antibody utilized. Nuclear staining for WT1 is highly specific for mesothelioma and, in the appropriate clinical setting, can be a helpful adjunct in the distinction between adenocarcinomas and mesotheliomas.

Comparison of antibodies to HBME-1 and calretinin for the detection of mesothelial cells in effusion cytology

The distinction of mesothelial cells in cytologic samples is often a diagnostic challenge. This is particularly true in potentially malignant effusions in which reactive mesothelial cells may simulate adenocarcinoma (ACA) cells, and in the differentiation of ACA vs. mesothelioma. We sought to determine the superior antibody for the positive identification of mesothelial cells in these circumstances. Cell block sections of 25 reactive and 8 malignant mesothelioma effusions were immunostained with an avidin-biotin procedure, using antibodies to HBME-1 and calretinin. No pretreatment of samples was necessary for the HBME-1-stained slides; microwave antigen retrieval was performed on all slides stained for calretinin. A negative control was performed on each sample. The staining intensity of tumor cells was scored on a scale of 0-3+, with the proportion of immunoreactive cells categorized as <25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, and >75%. The predominant staining pattern for HBME-1 was surface, with rare samples also exhibiting cytoplasmic staining as well. The calretinin-staining pattern was cytoplasmic, with peripheral condensation/prominence and accompanying nuclear staining. All samples were immunoreactive with both antibodies. Fifty-five percent (18/33) of samples showed significantly stronger immunoreactivity with calretinin than with HBME-1; 45% (15/33) of samples showed equivalent staining with the two markers. None of the samples in this study showed stronger immunoreactivity with HBME-1 than with calretinin. Sixty-one percent (20/33) of samples stained with HBME-1 at a moderate (2+) intensity. Fifty-five percent (18/33) of samples stained with calretinin at a strong (3+) intensity. While only 12% of samples showed >75% immunoreactivity for HBME-1, 58% of samples showed >75% of cells immunoreactive for calretinin. Calretinin is the preferred marker in identifying mesothelial cells in cytologic samples, showing the highest sensitivity for mesothelial cells, as evidenced by a more intense staining reaction in a higher percentage of cells than with HBME-1. Published 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Comparative immunochemical study of lectin-binding sites and cytoskeletal filaments in static and reactive mesothelium and adenocarcinoma

In cytological preparations, reactive mesothelial cells (RMC) in serous effusions are sometimes difficult to distinguish from adenocarcinoma cells (AC). RMC and AC can be distinguished by lectin-binding patterns, but the pattern of binding of lectins to normal mesothelium is not well defined. We investigated the expression of cytoskeletal filaments, cytokeratin (CK) and vimentin (VM), and the cell surface binding pattern of 10 lectins (HPA, SBA, ABA, DSA, PNA, RCA-I, UEA-I, LTA, WGA and ConA) in the serosa of 48 adenocarcinoma specimens. We also investigated the usefulness of six lectins (HPA, SBA, RCA-I, UEA-I, LTA and WGA) in identification of RMC and AC in 16 serous effusions. DSA reactivity was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in static mesothelial cells (SMC) than in RMC. Reactivity for LTA and ConA was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in SMC than in RMC. Anti-CK and anti-VM immunoreactivity was always positive in RMC and almost negative in SMC. In serous effusions, HPA, SBA and UEA-I binding was evident in 100, 88 and 81% of AC, respectively. Little to no binding of HPA, SBA or UEA-I was detected in RMC. Our results suggest that the morphological differences between SMC and RMC are likely to be due to differences in cytoskeletal composition, with accompanying changes in cell-surface lectin-binding patterns. HPA, SBA and UEA-I are likely to be useful markers for identification of RMC and AC in cytology.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma remains a difficult tumor to treat, much less cure. Currently, the best chance for long-term survival lies with early diagnosis and aggressive surgical extirpation, but given the typically long delay between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis, this is only possible with a high index of suspicion and an aggressive diagnosis workup. Early referral to a tertiary center experienced in the treatment of MPM may be important for several reasons: (1) decreased risk of tumor spread along multiple thoracenesis/biopsy tracts, (2) the availability of specialized pathologic assays for definitive diagnosis, (3) the availability of critical staging modalities (aggressive mediastinoscopy +/- thoracoscopy, MRI scans performed according to specific mesothelioma protocols, and perhaps PET scans), (4) surgical experience with pleurectomy/decortication and/or extrapleural pneumonectomy, that may decrease morbidity and mortality, and (5) the availability of novel adjuvant protocols. Single-modality therapy is unlikely to result in long-term survival. Aggressive surgery is required for optimal debulking, and extrapleural pneumonectomy may offer better local control compared with pleurectomy/ecortication. Delivery of optimal radiation schedules, which may involve large fractions as well as large total doses, is limited by the presence of nearby dose-limiting structures. Current chemotherapy is severely lacking in producing objective responses and improved survival although gemcitabine and IL-2 may be active agents to be combined with radiation and/or other agents. Hyperthermia, photodynamic therapy, intracavitary therapy, and gene therapy are all relatively new techniques under active investigation that should be supported by enrollment in on-going protocols. Predictably, many of these techniques provide greater benefit when used in the setting of adjuvant protocols or minimal residual disease, emphasizing the importance of multimodality therapy.

Calretinin staining pattern aids in the differentiation of mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma in serous effusions

BACKGROUND

The differentiation between malignant mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma based on morphology alone can be a diagnostic challenge. The majority of the available antibodies recognize molecules expressed by adenocarcinoma whereas to the authors' knowledge specific markers for mesothelial cells are lacking. Calretinin, a calcium-binding protein, has been reported to be a selective marker for mesothelioma and largely is absent from adenocarcinoma on histologic material. The results with cytologic preparations have been inconsistent.

METHODS

To evaluate the specificity of calretinin in differentiating mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma in cytologic preparations, 21 paraffin embedded cells blocks of serous effusions from 15 patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma and 16 cell blocks from 9 patients with malignant mesothelioma were stained with a monoclonal antibody against calretinin. The immunoreactivity was evaluated blindly by two observers. Positive staining was defined as nuclear and cytoplasmic staining with or without intense membranous decoration. The former resulted in a characteristic "fried egg" appearance.

RESULTS

Calretinin staining was positive in all but 2 cases of mesothelioma (14 of 16 cases; 87.5%). The latter contained predominantly spindle-shaped neoplastic mesothelial cells in the cell block preparations. All adenocarcinoma specimens were classified as negative for calretinin staining; 9 (42.9%) lacked any immunoreactivity and 12 (57.1%) showed weak, sparse, coarse, granular cytoplasmic staining without nuclear or membranous staining. Benign reactive mesothelial cells, when observed in association with adenocarcinoma, also showed the characteristic "fried egg" appearance. The difference in the staining pattern of calretinin between cells of mesothelial origin and adenocarcinoma cells was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Calretinin is a useful marker in differentiating mesothelioma of the epithelial type from adenocarcinoma in serous effusions. The "fried-egg" appearance or cytoplasmic and nuclear staining pattern is characteristic of cells of mesothelial origin.

Value of the mesothelium-associated antibodies thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6, calretinin, and CD44H in distinguishing epithelioid pleural mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura

Until recently, the standard approach of most laboratories in distinguishing epithelioid pleural mesothelioma from metastatic adenocarcinoma has been a negative result from a panel of adenocarcinoma-associated antibodies. However, several "mesothelium-associated" antibodies have been proposed as useful in this situation, and we have applied four of these putative mesothelioma markers--thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6, calretinin, and CD44H--to a series of 61 epithelioid pleural mesotheliomas and 63 metastatic adenocarcinomas with known primary sites (lung = 19; breast = 21; ovary = 6; colon = 10; kidney = 4; uterus, epididymis, pancreas = 1 case each). Of the mesotheliomas, 55 of 61 (90%) stained for thrombomodulin, 56 of 61 (92%) for cytokeratin 5/6, 47 of 51 cases (92%) were positive for calretinin, and 39 of 43 (91%) were positive for CD44H. Of the metastatic adenocarcinomas, 12 of 63 (19%) cases were positive for thrombomodulin, 9 of 63 (14%) were positive for CK5/6, and 27 of 60 (45%) were positive for CD44H. With calretinin, only 1 case of 59 (2%) showed positive nuclear staining. All four antibodies stained reactive mesothelium; thrombomodulin also stained endothelium; and CD44H variably stained lymphocytes, macrophages, and fibroblasts. We conclude that all four antibodies show high sensitivity for epithelioid mesothelioma, but only calretinin (98%), cytokeratin 5/6 (86%), and thrombomodulin (81%) show sufficient specificity for practical use in this situation.

Mesothelial hyperplasia with reactive atypia: diagnostic pitfalls and role of immunohistochemical studies-a case report

The cytomorphologic features of highly reactive mesothelial cells can be difficult to distinguish from malignant cells. We report on an unusual case of mesothelial hyperplasia in a pericardial effusion. The specimen contained bizarre-shaped cells and large tissue fragments in a patient with a history of lung carcinoma. The atypical cells were negative for CEA and LeuM-1 and positive for cytokeratins (AE1/3) and HBME-1. Strong HBME-1 positivity supported a mesothelial origin of the atypical cells and led to the diagnosis of reactive mesothelium. While HBME-1 cannot be used as the sole marker to establish an mesothelial origin; its use in a immunohistochemistry panel may be useful in individual cases to distinguish reactive mesothelial cells from carcinoma in effusion cytology. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2000;22:113-116.

Cytopathology of malignant mesothelioma of the pleura in fine-needle aspiration biopsy

The cytologic findings in fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of 9 histologically, immunohistochemically, and ultrastructurally confirmed malignant mesotheliomas of the pleura were reviewed. There were 4 epithelial malignant mesotheliomas (EMM), 3 sarcomatous mesotheliomas (SM), 1 mixed malignant mesothelioma (MMM), and 1 poorly differentiated malignant mesothelioma (PDMM). In FNAB, three EMMs yielded polygonal malignant cells with oval nuclei and prominent nucleoli, singly, in small sheets, and in tridimensional clusters with smooth or lobulated contours. In one EMM, only atypical mesothelial cells with prominent nucleoli were seen singly and in loose aggregates. In FNAB, two SM showed malignant spindle-shaped cells (MSC) with scant, ill-defined cytoplasm singly and in loose clusters. Cohesive clusters of elongated and polygonal cells with ill-defined, clear cytoplasm and pleomorphic nuclei containing small or prominent nucleoli were observed in one SM, with extensive clear-cell changes. In needle aspirates, the MMM showed polygonal malignant cells in clusters admixed with MSC. The PDMM displayed single and clustered large pleomorphic malignant cells, with prominent single or multiple nucleoli. Electron microscopic examination of minute tissue fragments retrieved from the FNAB in 2 cases of EMM revealed epithelial mesothelial cells with well-formed desmosomes and long slender microvilli (LSM) on the free tumor cell surfaces. In one case, LSM in direct contact with collagen fiber bundles in the tumor tissue matrix were observed, supporting the diagnosis of an invasive EMM. Diagn. Cytopathol. 1999;21:253-259.

E-cadherin, N-cadherin, and calretinin in pleural effusions: the good, the bad, the worthless

The distinction between reactive mesothelial cells (RMC), malignant mesothelioma (MM), and metastatic adenocarcinoma (ACA) in pleural effusions may be impossible based on morphology alone. E-cadherin, N-cadherin, and calretinin are newly described immunocytochemical markers which can potentially be utilized for facilitating this distinction. E-cadherin and N-cadherin are calcium-dependent intercellular adhesion molecules expressed in epithelial cells and mesenchymal/mesothelial cells, respectively. The differential expression of E-cadherins in epithelial cells and N-cadherins in mesothelial cells has been utilized to differentiate reactive mesothelial cells, MMs and ACAs. Calretinin is a calcium-binding protein within the family of EF-hand proteins. It is abundantly expressed in peripheral and central nervous tissues, and has been shown to consistently immunoreact with mesothelial cells. We studied cell block sections from 77 pleural effusions (22 RMC, 26 MM, and 29 ACA) to investigate the potential immunocytochemical use of anti-E-cadherin, anti-N-cadherin, and anti-calretinin antibodies for differentiating between RMC, MM, and ACA in pleural effusions. A modified avidin-biotin peroxidase complex (ABC) method was used. E-cadherin immunostaining was observed in 14% of RMC, 46% of MMs, and 97% of ACAs. A distinct membrane staining pattern was seen in ACAs. The pattern of staining was cytoplasmic in all reactive RMC and varied from membrane to cytoplasmic in MMs. Anti-N-cadherin immunoreacted with 77% of RMC, 35% of MMs, and 48% of ACAs. Twenty-seven percent of RMC, 58% of MMs, and 31% of ACAs immunoreacted with anti-calretinin. Based on these results, we conclude that anti-E-cadherin is a potentially useful marker in the distinction of ACA cells from RMC. However, it is not as useful for the distinction of ACA and MM. Anti-N-cadherin and anti-calretinin did not reliably distinguish between reactive mesothelial, MM, and ACA cells in pleural effusions.