Testing for BAP1 loss and CDKN2A/p16 homozygous deletion improves the accurate diagnosis of mesothelial proliferations in effusion cytology

Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Mesothelioma: 2023 Update of the Consensus Statement From the International Mesothelioma Interest Group

CONTEXT.—

Mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose.

OBJECTIVE.—

To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma.

DATA SOURCES.—

Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with expertise in mesothelioma contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.

CONCLUSIONS.—

There was consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) histomorphologic diagnosis of mesothelial tumors, including distinction of epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma; recognition of morphologic variants and patterns; and recognition of common morphologic pitfalls; (2) molecular pathogenesis of mesothelioma; (3) application of immunohistochemical markers to establish mesothelial lineage and distinguish mesothelioma from common morphologic differentials; (4) application of ancillary studies to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations, including BAP1 and MTAP immunostains; novel immunomarkers such as Merlin and p53; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for homozygous deletion of CDKN2A; and novel molecular assays; (5) practical recommendations for routine reporting of mesothelioma, including grading epithelioid mesothelioma and other prognostic parameters; (6) diagnosis of mesothelioma in situ; (7) cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma, including use of immunostains and molecular assays; and (8) features of nonmalignant peritoneal mesothelial lesions.

Pleural mesothelioma in situ : a comprehensive review

Pleural mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer that affects the pleura. In recent years, there has been increasing interest and attention in detecting and diagnosing early-stage or precancerous forms of mesothelioma because of its severe prognosis and short life expectancy at the time of diagnosis. Mesothelioma in situ represents a clear opportunity to improve and innovate the diagnostic approach and the multimodality treatment of mesothelioma: the diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma at the 'in-situ phase' means early disease detection and thus paves the way to new possible curable strategies. Since 2021, when mesothelioma in situ was finally identified and described as a new histological entity, its diagnosis and management became a challenge and the subject of ongoing research; several aspects remain open and still outstanding as regards diagnostic techniques, time and probability of progression, need for and methods of follow up, aggressive and early surgery. This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of mesothelioma in situ covering its definition, risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and tricky aspects of early detection. It also highlights its clinical significance, new perspectives, and potential future indications in the context of pleural mesothelioma multidisciplinary management.

Minimally Invasive, Maximally Effective: The Power of Precision Cytoanalysis on Effusion Samples-A Comprehensive Exploration from Traditional Methods to Innovative Approaches

Precision medicine translates through molecular assays and in minimally invasive diagnosis, evident in analyses of effusions that serve therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. This cost-effective and low-risk approach provides advantages, playing a pivotal role in late-stage oncology and frequently standing as the primary resource for cancer diagnosis and treatment pathways. This article outlines the workflow for managing serous fluid and explores how cytology effusion analysis extends beyond immunocytological diagnosis. Combined with current molecular tests it showcases the potential to be a skillful tool in precision cytopathology.

Reliably making the primary diagnosis of mesothelioma utilizing serous fluid cytology specimens: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of mesothelioma has historically been challenging, especially on serous fluid cytology (SFC). Distinguishing between reactive and neoplastic mesothelial cells can be difficult on cytomorphology alone. However, additional ancillary tests, such as BRCA1 associated protein-1 immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization for cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A deletion, can provide a sensitive and highly specific method of proving malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SFC specimens diagnosed as mesothelioma, suspicious for mesothelioma (SM), and atypical mesothelial cells (AMCs) since 2012 were identified by querying the laboratory information system. Clinical data and pathologic parameters were gathered.

RESULTS

One hundred ten cases of mesothelioma, SM, and AMC were identified. Of these, 61 cases had a definitive diagnosis of mesothelioma on SFC. Average age at SFC diagnosis was 67 years (26-87 years), with most patients being male (67%). Out of the 61 cases, 11 cases (18%) had an initial diagnosis of mesothelioma made on SFC specimens, with 5 of these 11 cases being in patients that never received a histologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. Ancillary studies were utilized in all 11 cases. An initial diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma was made on SFC in 9 cases (15%). For 6 of these 9 cases, the SFC diagnosis was the sole diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma without a companion histologic diagnosis. In addition, 15 cases were diagnosed as SM, with 11 of these cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis. Thirty-four cases were diagnosed as AMC, with 27 cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of mesothelioma can be reliably made on SFC with the appropriate cytomorphology criteria and/or confirmatory ancillary testing.

Investigation of MTAP and BAP1 staining loss and P16/CDKN2A deletion in pleural cytology specimens and its role in the diagnosis of mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

Mesothelioma is a malignant neoplasm with a poor survival rate. We aimed to investigate the importance of BAP1, MTAP (IHC), and p16/CDKN2A homozygous deletion (FISH) in cytologic material obtained from pleural effusion sampling, which is a less invasive procedure in the diagnosis of mesothelioma.

METHODS

Our study discussed pleural cytology samples of cases with histopathologically proven mesothelioma diagnoses between 2017 and 2022. As the control group, materials that had pleural effusion sampling for other reasons and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia were included in the study. Cell blocks prepared from these materials were subjected to fluorescent in situ hybridization for p16/CDKN2A homozygous deletion and immunohistochemistry for BAP1 and MTAP.

RESULTS

The specificity of the P16/CDKN2A homozygous deletion in diagnosing mesothelioma is 100%. Its sensitivity is 68.75%. The specificity of BAP1 immunohistochemical nuclear expression loss is 95%, while the sensitivity is 60%. Loss of nuclear expression of MTAP alone has the lowest specificity and sensitivity, with a specificity of 86% and a sensitivity of 43%. The highest sensitivity is reached when BAP1 loss and p16/CDKN2A homozygous deletion are evaluated together, increasing to 81%. The specificity is 95%.

CONCLUSION

It has been determined that any marker alone cannot be used for a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis in pleural effusion cytological specimens; however, sensitivity increases in some combinations. The combination of BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16/CDKN2A homozygous deletion detected by FISH, which has a higher specificity and sensitivity, can be routinely used in the diagnosis of mesothelioma under the guidance of clinical and radiologic information.

Detailed clinical course of a patient with rapidly progressing sarcomatoid pleural mesothelioma without p16 deletion with systemic haematogenous metastasis to soft tissues

Sarcomatoid mesothelioma is difficult to differentiate from other mesotheliomas. Here, we describe the case of a man in his early 80s with sarcomatoid mesothelioma and a history of asbestos exposure. He initially presented with right-sided chest pain and was examined. Right-sided pleural effusion was detected; therefore, he was hospitalised. Based on the observed pleural effusion and biopsy result, the presence of a malignant tumour was excluded; hence, he was diagnosed with benign asbestos pleurisy. He subsequently developed left-sided pleural effusion, masses and lung nodules, and died 9.5 months after the initial examination. A definitive diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma with rapid systemic progression was established after detailed investigations using autopsy specimens. This rare case of mesothelioma-without p16 deletion (detected using fluorescence in situ hybridisation)-presented differently from the usual sarcomatoid mesothelioma.

Current Approach to Undifferentiated Neoplasms, With Focus on New Developments and Novel Immunohistochemical Stains

CONTEXT.—

Workup of the poorly differentiated or undifferentiated tumor remains a significant and challenging entity in the practice of anatomic pathology. Particularly in the setting of small biopsies and limited material, these cases demand a balanced approach that considers the patient's clinical and radiologic presentation, a basic assessment of tumor morphology, a reasonably broad immunohistochemical panel, and diligent preservation of tissue for prognostic and therapeutic studies.

OBJECTIVE.—

To illustrate some of the new and emerging immunohistochemical markers in the evaluation of tumors with undifferentiated or poorly differentiated morphology, with a focus on the workup in limited tissue samples to raise awareness of the issues involved with the pathologic workup in these challenging tumors.

DATA SOURCES.—

A literature review of new ancillary studies that can be applied to cytologic specimens was performed.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Knowledge of the patient's history and communication with the patient's clinical team is essential in formulating a differential diagnosis that can appropriately limit the differential diagnosis based on morphology, especially in small specimens. This information, in conjunction with classifying the tumor morphology (eg, epithelioid, spindled, neuroendocrine, basaloid/biphasic, mixed) gives a logical approach to choosing an initial immunohistochemical panel. Fortunately, immunohistochemistry is evolving quickly in the wake of groundbreaking molecular studies to develop new and better markers to further classify these difficult tumors beyond where we traditionally have been able to go.

Comparison of immunohistochemical mesothelial biomarkers in paired biopsies and effusion cytology cell blocks from pleural mesothelioma

OBJECTIVE

Traditionally, the diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma is based on histological material. Minimally invasive effusion cytology specimens are an alternative that, like biopsies, require ancillary analyses. Validation of immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses on cytology, including the surrogate markers for molecular alterations BAP1 and MTAP, is of interest.

METHODS

IHC for eight different markers was performed on 59 paired formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded pleural biopsies and pleural effusion cell blocks with mesothelioma. Immunoreactivity in ≥10% of tumour cells was considered positive/preserved. The concordance between histological and cytological materials was assessed.

RESULTS

The overall percentage of agreement between the histological epithelioid component in 58 biopsies and paired cell blocks was 93% for calretinin, 98% for CK5, 97% for podoplanin, 90% for WT1, 86% for EMA, 100% for desmin, 91% for BAP1, and 72% for MTAP. For 11 cases with biphasic or sarcomatoid histology, the concordance between cytology and the histological sarcomatoid component was low for calretinin, CK5, and WT1 (all ≤45%). For the whole cohort, loss of both BAP1 and MTAP was seen in 40% while both markers were preserved in 11% of the biopsies for epithelioid histology. The corresponding numbers were 54% and 8%, respectively, for the paired cell blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, a high concordance for IHC staining was seen between paired biopsies and pleural effusion cell blocks from mesotheliomas, but the somewhat lower agreement for WT1, EMA, and especially MTAP calls for further investigation and local quality assurance. The lower concordance for the sarcomatoid subtype for some markers may indicate biological differences.

Usefulness of NF2 hemizygous loss detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnosing pleural mesothelioma in tissue and cytology material: A multi-institutional study

OBJECTIVES

BAP1, CDKN2A, and NF2 are the most frequently altered genes in pleural mesotheliomas (PM). Discriminating PM from benign mesothelial proliferation (BMP) is sometimes challenging; it is well established that BAP1 loss, determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC), and CDKN2A homozygous deletion (HD), determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), are useful. However, data regarding the diagnostic utility of NF2 FISH in PM is limited. Thus, we performed a multi-institutional study examining the utility of NF2 alterations determined by FISH for diagnosing PM in combination with BAP1 loss and CDKN2A HD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multi-institutional PM cases, including 106 surgical and 107 cell block samples as well as 37 tissue cases of benign mesothelial proliferation (BMP) and 31 cell block cases with reactive mesothelial cells (RMC), were collected and analyzed using IHC for BAP1 and FISH for CDKN2A and NF2.

RESULTS

In PM, NF2 FISH revealed hemizygous loss (HL) in 54.7% of tissue cases (TC) and 49.5% of cell block cases (CBC), with about 90% of HL being monosomy. CDKN2A HD or BAP1 loss were detected in 75.5%/65.4% TC or 63.6%/60% CBC, respectively. BMP or RMC showed no BAP1 loss, CDKN2A HD, or NF2 HL. For discriminating PM from BMP, a combination of BAP1 loss, CDKN2A HD, and NF2 HL yielded enhanced sensitivity of 98.1% TC/94.4% CBC. BAP1 loss, CDKN2A HD, or NF2 HL were observed in 69%, 70%, or 58% of epithelioid PM, but in 9%, 91%, or 27% of sarcomatoid PM, respectively. Histotype, histological gradings, and CDKN2A deletion status showed significant differences in overall survival, while BAP1 loss and NF2 HL did not.

CONCLUSION

NF2 HL, consisting predominantly of monosomy, can be detected by FISH in both TC and CBC of PM, and is effective for distinguishing PM from BMP, especially when combined with BAP1 loss and CDKN2A HD.

Update of pathological diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma using genomic-based morphological techniques, for both histological and cytological investigations

As more than 80% of pleural mesothelioma (PM) cases start with pleural effusions, diagnosis with effusion smear cytology or pleural biopsy is important. For diagnosing PM, a three-step approach is used: (1) detecting atypical cells; (2) verifying their mesothelial origin using immunohistochemistry (IHC); and (3) discriminating PM from benign mesothelial proliferations (BMP). The third step is critical for diagnosing early lesions. In small biopsy or cytologic specimens in which tumor cell fat invasion cannot be assessed, genomic-based assays, including IHC-detected BAP1 loss and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-detected homozygous deletion (HD) of CDKN2A/p16, are effective for differentiation. Both BAP1 IHC and CDKN2A FISH can equally be applied to histologic and cytologic specimens, with 100% specificity in discriminating PM from BMP. We found that methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) loss as detected by IHC could serve as a feasible alternative in tissue and cytologic preparations for CDKN2A FISH. However, a combination including FISH was still most effective: the addition of NF2 FISH to CDKN2A FISH and BAP1 IHC yielded a greater sensitivity of close to 100% in diagnosing PM tissues. Although IHC is more feasible than FISH, owing to remaining challenges in data interpretation, caution and familiarity are warranted when diagnosing PM.

Pleural mesothelioma classification-update and challenges

Mesothelial tumors are classified into benign or preinvasive tumors, and mesotheliomas. The benign or preinvasive group includes adenomatoid tumors, well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumors, and mesothelioma in situ. Malignant tumors are mesotheliomas and can be localized or diffuse. Histological classification of invasive mesotheliomas into three major subtypes-epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic is prognostically important. It also plays a significant role in the treatment decisions of patients diagnosed with this deadly disease. Grading and subtyping of epithelioid mesotheliomas have been one of the major changes in the recent WHO classification of pleural tumors. Mesothelioma in situ has emerged as a precisely defined clinico-pathologic entity that for diagnosis requires demonstration of loss of BAP1 or MTAP by immunohistochemistry, or CDKN2A homozygous deletion by FISH. The use of these two biomarkers improves the diagnostic sensitivity of effusion specimens  and limited tissue samples and is valuable in establishing the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma. In this review, recent changes in the histologic classification of pleural mesothelioma, importance of ancillary diagnostic studies, and molecular characteristics of mesotheliomas are discussed.

Molecular characterization of pleomorphic mesothelioma: a multi-institutional study

The molecular alterations of pleomorphic mesotheliomas are largely unknown. In the present study, we performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) on 24 pleomorphic mesotheliomas in order to better characterize the molecular profile of this rare histologic variant. BAP1 protein expression and CDKN2A deletion by FISH were also evaluated. Significantly mutated genes included BAP1 (35%), NF2 (13%), LATS2 (8%), TP53 (5%), and LATS1 (3%). BAP1 alterations most frequently co-occurred with deletions of chromosomes 4, 9, and 13. Other important genetic alterations in pleomorphic mesotheliomas included truncating mutations in NF2 (3 of 24; 12.5%), LATS2 (2 of 24; 8%), TP53 (1 of 24; 4%), and PBRM1 (1 of 24; 4%). Focal losses of chromosome 9p21 were most common copy number alterations (11 of 24 cases; 46%), and were assessed by WES and targeted FISH. The second most common were deletions of chromosome 4 (8 of 24; 33% pleomorphic mesotheliomas). Three cases of pleomorphic mesothelioma did not show any mutations, copy number alterations, or LOH. This first WES analysis of pleomorphic mesotheliomas did not identify novel or unique mutations. In contrast to transitional mesothelioma that was reclassified as sarcomatoid variant based on transcriptome data, pleomorphic mesotheliomas are molecularly heterogeneous and therefore their reclassification into single subtype is more difficult.

State-of-the-art cytology of pleural fluid, focusing on the diagnosis of mesothelioma

Mesothelioma has always been a challenging diagnosis to render in body cavity cytology samples. This review is a timely update on pleural fluid cytology and ancillary studies that should be considered in the diagnosis of mesothelial proliferations, specifically mesotheliomas. Information about new diagnostic approaches and ancillary studies in mesothelioma was obtained from the peer-reviewed literature and the authors' experiences. Although the morphological diagnosis of mesothelioma is fraught with numerous challenges given the overlap with other diagnostic entities, there are a variety of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization studies available to help in determining mesothelial origin and in distinguishing malignant proliferations from the more common benign or reactive mesothelial proliferations. Although ancillary studies can be helpful, there are important pitfalls to be aware of when interpreting these cases, and this review highlights some of the challenges that require caution.

The concept of mesothelioma in situ, with consideration of its potential impact on cytology diagnosis

Diffuse malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an incurable tumour of the serosal membranes, which is often caused by exposure to asbestos and commonly diagnosed at advanced stage. Malignant mesothelioma in situ (MMIS) is now included as diagnostic category by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, our international survey of 34 pulmonary pathologists with an interest in MM diagnosis highlights inconsistency regarding how the diagnosis is being made by experts, despite published guidelines. Whilst the WHO restricts the diagnosis to surgical samples, the very concept has implication for cytological diagnosis, which is already regarded as controversial in itself by some. MMIS is currently only applicable as precursor to MM with an epithelioid component, and raises the possibility for different molecular pathways for different histological MM subtypes. The clinical implications of MMIS at this stage are uncertain, but aggressive therapies are being initiated in some instances. Based on the results of the survey we here present a critical appraisal of the concept, its clinical and conceptual implications and provide practice suggestions for diagnosis. A low threshold for ancillary testing is suggested. The designations of 'malignant mesothelioma, cannot exclude MMIS' or 'atypical mesothelial proliferation with molecular indicators of malignancy, so-called MMIS' could be used on cytology samples, adding 'no evidence of invasion in sample provided' for surgical samples. Clinical and radiological correlation are integral to diagnosis and best done at multidisciplinary meetings. Finally, collaborative studies are required to improve our understanding of MMIS.

Pleural mesothelioma classification update

The 2015 WHO classification of pleural mesotheliomas includes three major histologic subtypes-epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic. Recent genomic data has supported the need for a more granular and clinically valid classification beyond the three current subtypes. Because of tumor rarity and overlapping histologic features with other tumor types, diagnostic immunohistochemical work up is essential component in establishing the final diagnosis of mesothelioma. The use of BAP1 and CDKN2A/MTAP improves the diagnostic sensitivity of effusion specimens and are valuable in establishing the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma. The major change in the forthcoming WHO classification is the inclusion of mesothelioma in situ as a diagnostic category. In this review, we discuss recently proposed changes in the histologic classification of pleural mesothelioma, differential diagnosis, and importance of ancillary diagnostic studies.

Diagnostic mesothelioma biomarkers in effusion cytology

Malignant mesothelioma is a rare malignancy with a poor prognosis whose development is related to asbestos fiber exposure. An increasing role of genetic predisposition has been recognized recently. Pleural biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis, in which the identification of pleural invasion by atypical mesothelial cell is a major criterion. Pleural effusion is usually the first sign of disease; therefore, a cytological specimen is often the initial or the only specimen available for diagnosis. Given that reactive mesothelial cells may show marked atypia, the diagnosis of mesothelioma on cytomorphology alone is challenging. Accordingly, cell block preparation is encouraged, as it permits immunohistochemical staining. Traditional markers of mesothelioma such as glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1) and insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3) are informative, but difficult to interpret when reactive proliferations aberrantly stain positive. BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) nuclear staining loss is highly specific for mesothelioma, but sensitivity is low in sarcomatoid tumors. Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A)/p16 homozygous deletion, assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization, is more specific for mesothelioma with better sensitivity, even in the sarcomatoid variant. The surrogate marker methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) has been found to demonstrate excellent diagnostic correlation with p16. The purpose of this review is to provide an essential appraisal of the literature regarding the diagnostic value of many of these emerging biomarkers for malignant mesothelioma in effusion cytology.