The diagnostic utility of D2-40 for malignant mesothelioma versus pulmonary carcinoma with pleural involvement

Integrated Bioinformatics and Machine Learning Analysis Identify ACADL as a Potent Biomarker of Reactive Mesothelial Cells

Mesothelial cells with reactive hyperplasia are difficult to distinguish from malignant mesothelioma cells based on cell morphology. This study aimed to identify and validate potential biomarkers that distinguish mesothelial cells from mesothelioma cells through machine learning combined with immunohistochemistry. It integrated the gene expression matrix from three Gene Expression Omnibus data sets (GSE2549, GSE12345, and GSE51024) to analyze the differently expressed genes between normal and mesothelioma tissues. Then, three machine learning algorithms, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, support vector machine recursive feature elimination, and random forest were used to screen and obtain four shared candidate markers, including ACADL, EMP2, GPD1L, and HMMR. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the area under the curve for distinguishing normal mesothelial cells from mesothelioma was 0.976, 0.943, 0.962, and 0.956, respectively. The expression and diagnostic performance of these candidate genes were validated in two additional independent data sets (GSE42977 and GSE112154), indicating that the performances of ACADL, GPD1L, and HMMR were consistent between the training and validation data sets. Finally, the optimal candidate marker ACADL was verified by immunohistochemistry assay. Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase long chain (ACADL) was stained strongly in mesothelial cells, especially for reactive hyperplasic mesothelial cells, but was negative in malignant mesothelioma cells. Therefore, ACADL has the potential to be used as a specific marker of reactive hyperplasic mesothelial cells in the differential diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Evaluation of DNA/RNA quality from cell block of malignant mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare and highly lethal tumor that arises from mesothelial tissue on the surface of the chest and abdominal cavity. Cytological examination of body fluids, including pleural fluid and ascites, is essential for the differentiation of malignant mesothelioma from other carcinomas, such as lung and gastrointestinal carcinomas and metastatic tumors. To evaluate the effectiveness of cell block preparation procedures, which are used for immunocytochemical staining and genetic panel analysis of tumor-specific gene mutations, we used various fixatives. We also evaluated the effects of immunostaining, and the quality of nucleic acids for genetic analysis.

METHODS

Cell blocks were prepared using the malignant mesothelioma cell lines MESO4 and H226 and non-small cell lung carcinoma cell line HCC78. The cells were fixed using 10% neutral buffered formalin and four different fixatives for liquid cytology. Fixed cells were formed into cell clusters using sodium alginate or centrifugation, and paraffin-embedded cell blocks were prepared.

RESULTS

Cell blocks were morphologically evaluated by hematoxylin and eosin and immunocytological staining, and the nucleic acid quality was evaluated by DNA/RNA extraction, qPCR, and next-generation sequence analysis. D2-40 and WT1 staining differed depending on the fixation solution and the cell cluster formation method; however, the degree of nucleic acid degradation was not impaired by any method.

CONCLUSION

Although the morphological evaluation of cytology specimens is affected by the method of cell block preparation, it is still useful for nucleic acid extraction and gene panel analysis, as long as there are sufficient amounts of tumor cells.

Cytokeratin 5 and cytokeratin 6 expressions are unconnected in normal and cancerous tissues and have separate diagnostic implications

Cytokeratins (CKs) 5 and 6 are functionally unrelated but often analyzed together using bispecific antibodies in diagnostic immunohistochemistry. To better understand the diagnostic utility of CK5 or CK6 alone, tissue microarrays with > 15,000 samples from 120 different tumor types as well as 608 samples of 76 different normal tissues were analyzed by immunohistochemistry. In normal tissues, both CKs occurred in the squamous epithelium; CK5 dominated in basal and CK6 in suprabasal layers. CK5 (not CK6) stained basal cells in various other organs. Within tumors, both CK5 and CK6 were seen in > 95% of squamous cell carcinomas, but other tumor entities showed different results: CK5 predominated in urothelial carcinoma and mesothelioma, but CK6 in adenocarcinomas. Joint analysis of both CK5 and CK6 obscured the discrimination of epithelioid mesothelioma (100% positive for CK5 alone and for CK5/6) from adenocarcinoma of the lung (12.8% positive for CK5 alone; 23.7% positive for CK5/6). CK5 and CK6 expressions were both linked to high grade, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor negativity in breast cancer (p < 0.0001 each), grade/stage progression in urothelial cancer (p < 0.0001), and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer (p < 0.01). Useful diagnostic properties which are commonly attributed to CK5/6 antibodies such as basal cell staining in the prostate, distinction of adenocarcinoma of the lung from squamous cell carcinoma and epithelioid mesothelioma, and identification of basal-type features in urothelial cancer are solely driven by CK5. At least for the purpose of distinguishing thoracic tumors, monospecific CK5 antibodies may be better suited than bispecific CK5/6 antibodies.

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.

HEG1, BAP1, and MTAP are useful in cytologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma with effusion

BACKGROUND

The specificity and sensitivity of HEG1 for malignant mesothelioma (MM) is high. The use of BAP1/MTAP immunohistochemistry (IHC) is recommended to separate benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations. We determined how ancillary techniques can be used for the cytological diagnosis of MM with effusion.

METHODS

Cell blocks from effusions from cases with MM, reactive mesothelial cells (RMCs), and carcinomas were analyzed by IHC with HEG1, BAP1, and MTAP and with homozygous deletion (HD) of CDKN2A by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Staining scores were calculated for IHC by adding the number of categories for the staining intensity and the staining extension.

RESULTS

HEG1 was positive in all (41/41) MMs, but negative in carcinomas, except for ovarian carcinomas. Overall 76.9% (20/26) of RMCs and 28.6% (6/21) of ovarian carcinomas expressed HEG1. BAP1 loss was found in 71.1% of MMs, but none was found in RMCs. MTAP loss was found in 76.2% of MMs, but none was found in RMCs. 73.9% of MMs harbored HD of CDKN2A. There was concordance between loss of MTAP and HD of CDKN2A in 95% of MMs.

CONCLUSION

HEG1 is a good marker for mesothelial differentiation in effusion cytology. HD of CDKN2A is frequently observed in cell blocks from effusions of MMs, and MTAP IHC may act as a surrogate for HD of CDKN2A. Cell block analysis is recommended for effusions of unknown origins with the following methods: IHC with HEG1 and claudin 4 to validate the mesothelial origin, followed by BAP1 and MTAP IHC to confirm malignancy.

Diagnostic value of D2-40 immunostaining for malignant mesothelioma: a meta-analysis

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) has become a global disease burden for its rising incidence and invariable fatality. D2-40 has been widely used as an immunostaining marker of diagnosing MM, while its diagnostic value has not yet been evaluated. Our study aimed to assess the overall accuracy of D2-40 immunostaining for diagnosing MM through a meta-analysis. A total of 22 studies with 2,264 participants were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane database. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of D2-40 for MM was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84–0.89) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74–0.79), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.93, with a diagnostic odds ratio 40.37 (95% CI: 19.97–81.61). None of the study variates was found to be a source of heterogeneity after meta-regression analysis. In conclusion, D2-40 immunostaining may not give sufficient evidence by itself to diagnose MM and should be in combination with other markers to improve the accuracy of diagnosis.

Detection of malignant mesothelioma using nuclear structure of mesothelial cells in effusion cytology specimens

Mesothelioma is a form of cancer generally caused from previous exposure to asbestos. Although it was considered a rare neoplasm in the past, its incidence is increasing worldwide due to extensive use of asbestos. In the current practice of medicine, the gold standard for diagnosing mesothelioma is through a pleural biopsy with subsequent histologic examination of the tissue. The diagnostic tissue should demonstrate the invasion by the tumor and is obtained through thoracoscopy or open thoracotomy, both being highly invasive surgical operations. On the other hand, thoracocentesis, which is removal of effusion fluid from the pleural space, is a far less invasive procedure that can provide material for cytological examination. In this study, we aim at detecting and classifying malignant mesothelioma based on the nuclear chromatin distribution from digital images of mesothelial cells in effusion cytology specimens. Accordingly, a computerized method is developed to determine whether a set of nuclei belonging to a patient is benign or malignant. The quantification of chromatin distribution is performed by using the optimal transport-based linear embedding for segmented nuclei in combination with the modified Fisher discriminant analysis. Classification is then performed through a k-nearest neighborhood approach and a basic voting strategy. Our experiments on 34 different human cases result in 100% accurate predictions computed with blind cross validation. Experimental comparisons also show that the new method can significantly outperform standard numerical feature-type methods in terms of agreement with the clinical diagnosis gold standard. According to our results, we conclude that nuclear structure of mesothelial cells alone may contain enough information to separate malignant mesothelioma from benign mesothelial proliferations.

Diagnostic accuracy of calretinin for malignant mesothelioma in serous effusions: a meta-analysis

Numerous studies have investigated the utility of calretinin in differentiating malignant mesothelioma (MM) from metastatic carcinoma (MC) in serous effusions. However, the results remain controversial. The aim of this study is to determine the overall accuracy of calretinin in serous effusions for MM through a meta-analysis of published studies. Publications addressing the accuracy of calretinin in the diagnosis of MM were selected from the Medline (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Library Database and the Web of Science. Data from selected studies were pooled to yield summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Statistical analysis was performed by Meta-Disc 1.4 and STATA 12.0 softwares. 18 studies met the inclusion criteria and the summary estimating for calretinin in the diagnosis of MM were: sensitivity 0.91 (95%CI: 0.87–0.94), specificity 0.96 (95%CI: 0.95–0.96), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) 14.42 (95%CI: 7.92–26.26), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) 0.1 (95%CI: 0.05–0.2) and diagnostic odds ratio 163.03 (95%CI: 54.62–486.63). The SROC curve indicated that the maximum joint sensitivity and specificity (Q-value) was 0.92; the area under the curve was 0.97. Our findings suggest that calretinin may be a useful diagnostic tool for confirming MM in serous effusions.

Primary intrahepatic malignant mesothelioma with multiple lymphadenopathies due to non-tuberculous mycobacteria: A case report and review of the literature

Primary intrahepatic malignant mesothelioma (PIHMM) is an extremely rare tumor with clinicopathological characteristics that remain to be elucidated. The current study presents the case of a 68-year-old female with PIHMM and multiple lymphadenopathies due to non-tuberculous mycobacteria. The patient presented with an intrahepatic tumor, 70 mm in diameter, in the right lobe of the liver. An ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the liver tumor revealed findings that were consistent with an intrahepatic malignant mesothelioma. The systemic lymph node swellings were due to epithelioid granulomas that were caused by non-tuberculous mycobacteria. However, a hepatic rupture occurred due to the rapid growth of the liver tumor and consequently, a surgical resection was not performed. A review of the literature revealed that the clinicopathological characteristics of PIHMM are similar to those of non-occupational mesothelioma. However, PIHMM is usually a solitary tumor and is rarely associated with cavity effusion in contrast with conventional mesothelioma. Therefore, surgical resection with curative intent is often recommended for patients with PIHMM.

Mesothelioma - Update on Diagnostic Strategies

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) can be a challenging diagnosis for clinicians to make as it is often difficult to distinguish from benign asbestos pleural effusions and metastatic carcinomas. In this review, we present a case of MPM and discuss clinical manifestations, traditional diagnostic techniques, and the role of cytopathologic immunostains and serum biomarkers in the diagnosis of MPM.

Value of D2-40 in the differential diagnosis of pleural neoplasms with emphasis on its positivity in solitary fibrous tumor

D2-40 is a new monoclonal antibody recognizing podoplanin and it is selective for lymphatic endothelium. Several studies have confirmed the reliability of D2-40 in the diagnosis of pleural malignant mesothelioma, but the evaluation of this antibody in other pleural neoplasms is limited. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of D2-40 in segregation of malignant mesothelioma from other pleural or lung neoplasms. Sixty-seven cases, including 36 pleural malignant mesotheliomas, 15 solitary fibrous tumors, 13 pleomorphic carcinomas, and 3 synovial sarcomas, were immunohistochemically studied using a D2-40 monoclonal antibody. Twenty-five (21 epithelioid and 4 biphasic) of 36 (69%) malignant mesotheliomas and 2 of 15 (13%) solitary fibrous tumors were positive for D2-40. The difference of D2-40 positivity between these 2 types of tumor was significant (P<0.001). No D2-40 positivity was detected in pleomorphic carcinomas (n=13) or synovial sarcomas (n=3). These findings showed that D2-40 was frequently positive in malignant mesothelioma, but could also be positive in a small portion of solitary fibrous tumor. These results indicate that D2-40 is a valuable marker for malignant mesothelioma, but caution should be taken when evaluating D2-40-positive pleural spindle cell neoplasms in limited small biopsy specimens, especially when the differential diagnosis includes solitary fibrous tumor and malignant mesothelioma.

Evidence-based guidelines to optimize the selection of antibody panels in cytopathology: pleural effusions with malignant epithelioid cells

There is no established methodology to help select cost effective antibody panels. We used Bayesian statistics and an evidence-based pathology (EBP) approach to retrospectively review the use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 153 consecutive pleural effusions evaluated in our laboratory from 2005-2007 for the differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelial cells versus carcinoma cells and to estimate the likely site of origin of a carcinoma. The results in this "training" set were used to design antibody panels and test their clinical applicability on a "test set" of 44 pleural effusions collected in early 2008. Cytopathologists had used 6 +/- 4.5 IHC tests per case for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (n = 9) and carcinomas of lung (n = 60), breast (n = 47), Müllerian (n = 25), and other origins in the "training set". The sensitivity and specificity of pleural cytology using all these IHC tests were 32% and 95%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and post-test odds (PTO) of a positive IHC result were calculated for each antibody and by the following classes: malignant mesothelial cells and carcinoma cells by primary site of origin. The antibodies that provided the best PTO to diagnose the most prevalent tumors in our population were included in diagnostic panels for male (calretinin, TTF-1, PSA and CDX-2) and female (calretinin, TTF-1, ER and CA125) patients. These panels provided 100% specificity and 77% and 50% sensitivity, respectively, for the pleural effusions from female and male patients in the "test set." The use of an EBP approach for test selection in cytopathology is discussed.

[Pseudo-mesotheliomatous adenocarcinoma of the lung]

Both pathologists and clinicians are challenged by the diagnosis of a particular variant of the peripheral adenocarcinoma with involvement of the pleura parietalis, the so-called pseudo-mesotheliomatous adenocarcinoma of the lung (PMAC), which is hard to differentiate from epithelioid mesothelioma on imaging and cytology, macroscopically as well as histologically. However, the exact diagnosis is not only crucial for the patient's therapy but also for insurance matters. Immunohistochemical evaluation represents a quick and a relatively cheap tool for which a few antibody panels have been proposed in recent years as being suitable to distinguish between these two entities. One of the positive markers for epithelioid mesothelioma most often suggested seems to be calretinin. We would like to report on a case of PMAC with the special feature of positive calretinin immunohistochemical staining. Using histochemistry and a few additional antibodies we were able to reliably characterize the tumor and provide the patient with appropriate therapy. This article gives a short overview of the possibilities available for distinguishing between these two entities in the context of a case report.

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.

Immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing between adenocarcinomas and reactive mesothelial cells in effusion cell blocks

The aim of our study was to determine the value of a panel that consisted of one epithelial marker (MOC-31) and two mesothelial markers (D2-40 and calretinin) for distinguishing between reactive mesothelial cells (RMCs) and adenocarcinomas (ACs) in effusion fluids. A total of 118 cell block specimens from pleural and peritoneal effusions, including 88 ACs and 30 benign effusions with RMCs were stained with antibodies against MOC-31, D2-40, and calretinin. MOC-31 membranous activity was observed in all samples from ACs, regardless of the primary tumor site. All benign effusion samples with RMCs were negative for MOC-31. All benign effusion samples with RMCs exhibited membranous staining for D2-40, and one AC case had focal reactivity for D2-40. Almost all benign effusions reacted positively with calretinin. Staining was noted in both the cytoplasm and the nucleus in the majority of cases. Scattered tumor cells had weak calretinin positivity in two AC cases. Background RMCs in AC effusions were consistently positive for D2-40 and calretinin. In general, D2-40 identified more RMCs than calretinin. The staining combination of positive for MOC-31 and negative for D2-40 or calretinin were 100% specific and 99% sensitive for ACs. Our data suggest that immunohistochemical studies performed on cell blocks with MOC-31, D2-40, and calretinin were useful in the differentiation between ACs and RMCs. D2-40 was a more sensitive marker for RMCs than calretinin.

Cytopathologic differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells: A logistic regression analysis

Distinguishing malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial proliferation in both cytologic and surgical pathologic specimens is often a diagnostic challenge. Conventional cytomorphologic assessment is an important step in the differential diagnosis of these entities.The pleural effusion cytologies from 40 cases of malignant mesothelioma, 40 cases of adenocarcinoma and 30 cases of reactive mesothelial proliferation diagnosed between 1997 and 2007 were reviewed. Twenty-seven cytologic features which are regarded as useful in the differential diagnosis of mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and benign mesothelial proliferation were assessed. These cytologic features were subjected to a stepwise logistic regression analysis. Three features were selected to distinguish malignant mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma: giant atypical mesothelial cell (P = 0.0001), nuclear pleomorphism (P = 0.0001) and acinar structures (P = 0.0001), the latter two being characteristics of adenocarcinoma. The variables selected to differentiate malignant mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial cells were: cell ball formation (P = 0.0001), cell in cell engulfment (P = 0.0001) and monolayer cell groups (P = 0.0001), the latter being a feature of benign mesothelial proliferation. When these selected variables were subjected to a stepwise logistic regression analysis, the logistic model correctly predicted 90% of cases of benign mesothelial proliferation versus 97.5% of malignant mesothelioma and 92.5% of malignant mesothelioma versus 92.5% of adenocarcinoma.Conventional cytomorphologic assessment is the first step to establish an accurate diagnosis in pleural effusions. Several cytologic features have predictive value to separate malignant mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial proliferation.

Cytologic malignancy versus benignancy: how useful are the "newer" markers in body fluid cytology?

CONTEXT

Differentiating reactive effusion, malignant mesothelioma, and metastatic adenocarcinoma in body cavity fluids can be challenging. Interpreting immunohistochemical markers in cell block preparations can be difficult because of nonspecific staining, focal staining, or poor staining quality. We selected a panel of conventional and newer markers to assess their utility in evaluating effusions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of 5 immunohistochemical markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial proliferation, malignant mesothelioma, and metastatic adenocarcinoma in body cavity fluids.

DESIGN

A total of 72 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cell block specimens from pleural and peritoneal effusions, including 5 mesotheliomas, 48 adenocarcinomas, and 19 benign effusions were stained with antibodies against calretinin, D2-40, XIAP, MOC-31, and WT1.

RESULTS

All benign effusions and mesotheliomas demonstrated diffuse membranous staining with D2-40. All mesotheliomas displayed calretinin positivity, whereas only 58% of benign effusions stained focally with calretinin. MOC-31 was positive in all cases of adenocarcinoma, whereas all benign effusions and mesotheliomas were negative. All cases of the metastatic adenocarcinoma were negative for calretinin and D2-40. However, background reactive mesothelial cells were positive for calretinin and D2-40. Overall, D2-40 highlighted more mesothelial cells than calretinin. WT1 was positive in 50% of benign effusions, 60% of mesotheliomas, and 27% of adenocarcinomas. XIAP stained most mesotheliomas (80%), some adenocarcinomas (51%), and rare benign effusions (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

MOC-31 and D2-40 were very sensitive and specific markers of epithelial and mesothelial cells, respectively. Compared with calretinin, D2-40 was a more sensitive marker of mesothelial cells. WT1 proved to be nonspecific. XIAP was not a sensitive marker for malignancy and had a limited value in cytology. We recommend using a panel to include MOC-31 and D2-40 to improve diagnostic accuracy in body cavity effusions.