Distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial cells in effusions by Glut-1, EMA, and Desmin expression: An evidence-based approach

Concordance between CDKN2A homozygous deletion and MTAP immunohistochemical loss in fluoroedenite-induced pleural mesothelioma: An immunohistochemical and molecular study on a single-institution series

Fluoroedenite-induced pleural mesothelioma (FE-induced-PM) is a rare and small subset of PM that shares with its asbestos-induced counterpart the same aggressive biological behavior and poor prognosis, but that differs from it from a pathogenetic point of view as it is associated with exposure to fluoroedenite, a carcinogenic agent that shows similarities with tremolite amphibolic asbestos fibers. Although it has been demonstrated that asbestos-induced PMs frequently harbor CDKN2A homozygous deletion and that the immunohistochemical loss of MTAP may represent a cheap and reliable surrogate marker for this molecular alteration, little is known about the molecular landscape and the reliability of MTAP immunohistochemistry in this peculiar subset of PM. The study herein presented investigated the prevalence of CDKN2A homozygous deletion and its concordance with MTAP immunohistochemical status on a cohort of 10 cases of FE-induced-PM from patients with environmental exposure to FE fibers, who were residents in the small town of Biancavilla (Sicily, Italy) or nearby areas. CDKN2A homozygous deletions were found in 3 out of 10 cases (30%) and all these cases showed concomitant cytoplasmic loss of MTAP with a concordance rate of 100%. Despite the relatively low number of cases included in our series, MTAP immunohistochemistry seemed to represent a reliable immunohistochemical surrogate marker of CDKNA homozygous deletion even in this subset of PMs.

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.

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 GLUT-1 in distinguishing malignant mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial cells: a meta-analysis

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated the diagnostic value of glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) to distinguish malignant mesothelioma (MM) from reactive mesothelial cells (RMC), but the results are inconsistent. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of GLUT-1 in distinguishing MM from RMC.Methods: A systematical search was conducted until May 2019 in PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the quality of the eligible studies. The Stata15 and Review Manager5.3 software programmes were used to perform the meta-analysis.Results: A total of 24 studies, including 969 MM patients and 1080 RMC individuals were explored in the meta-analysis. The summary assessments revealed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81) and the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.98). The area under the summary ROC curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95).Conclusions: GLUT-1 is highly accurate to distinguish MM from RMC.

Immunohistochemical evaluation of nuclear 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) accurately distinguishes malignant pleural mesothelioma from benign mesothelial proliferations

Accurate distinction of benign mesothelial proliferations from malignant mesothelioma remains a diagnostic challenge. Sequential use of BAP1 immunohistochemistry and CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization is specific for diagnosis of mesothelioma, but fluorescence in situ hybridization is both costly and time-consuming. Early data indicate that mesothelioma shows extensive loss of nuclear 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC). We studied 49 cases of mesothelioma (17 epithelioid mesothelioma, 22 biphasic mesothelioma, and 10 sarcomatoid mesothelioma) and 23 benign mesothelial proliferations using a 5-hmC single immunohistochemical stain, CAM5.2/5-hmC double immunohistochemical stain, and BAP1 immunohistochemistry. Estimations of extent of 5-hmC loss were made using the 5-hmC single stain and CAM5.2/5-hmC double stain, and extent of nuclear 5-hmC loss was definitively quantitated in at least 1000 cells per case. Mean nuclear 5-hmC loss in mesothelioma (84%) was significantly greater than in benign mesothelial proliferations (4%) (p < 0.0001). Using 5-hmC loss in > 50% of tumor nuclei to define the diagnosis of mesothelioma, 5-hmC immunohistochemistry showed sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 100%. An immunopanel including 5-hmC and BAP1 immunohistochemistry achieved sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 100%. Extensive nuclear 5-hmC loss is sensitive and specific for mesothelioma in the differential diagnosis with benign mesothelial proliferations. In challenging mesothelial lesions, immunohistochemical studies showing either extensive 5-hmC loss or BAP1 loss indicate a diagnosis of mesothelioma, precluding the need for CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization in a considerable number of cases.

Molecular markers and new diagnostic methods to differentiate malignant from benign mesothelial pleural proliferations: a literature review

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive tumor associated with asbestos exposure. Histopathological analysis of pleural tissues is the gold standard for diagnosis; however, it can be difficult to differentiate malignant from benign pleural lesions. The purpose of this review is to describe the most important biomarkers and new diagnostic tools suggested for this differential diagnosis. There are many studies concerning the separation between MPM and benign pleural proliferations from both pleural tissues or effusions; most of them are based on the evaluation of one or few biomarkers by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), whereas others focused on the identification of MPM signatures given by microRNA (miRNA) or gene expression profiles as well as on the combination of molecular data and classification algorithms. None of the reported biomarkers showed adequate diagnostic accuracy, except for p16 [evaluated by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH)] and BAP1 (evaluated by IHC), both biomarkers are recommended by the International Mesothelioma Interest Group guidelines for histological and cytological diagnosis. BAP1 and p16 showed a specificity of 100% in discerning malignant from benign lesions because they are exclusively unexpressed or deleted in MPM. However, their sensitivity, even when used together, is not completely sufficient, and absence of their alterations cannot confirm the benign nature of the lesion. Recently, the availability of new techniques and increasing knowledge regarding MPM genetics led to the definition of some molecular panels, including genes or miRNAs specifically deregulated in MPM, that are extremely valuable for differential diagnosis. Moreover, the development of classification algorithms is facilitating the application of molecular data for clinical practice. Data regarding new diagnostic tools and MPM signatures are absolutely promising; however, before their application in clinical practice, a prospective validation is necessary, as these approaches could surely improve the differential diagnosis between malignant and benign pleural lesions.

Practical utility of insulin-like growth factor II mRNA-binding protein 3, glucose transporter 1, and epithelial membrane antigen for distinguishing malignant mesotheliomas from benign mesothelial proliferations

The differentiation of malignant mesotheliomas and benign mesothelial proliferations is crucial in determining patient care and prognosis. But, this distinction can be extremely difficult, particularly in small biopsies. Recently, insulin-like growth factor II mRNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3) and glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) have been reported as specific and sensitive markers in the distinction of mesotheliomas from benign mesothelial proliferations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of IMP3, GLUT-1, and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) immunohistochemistry for distinguishing mesotheliomas from benign mesothelial proliferations. Immunoexpression of IMP3, GLUT-1, and EMA was evaluated in 88 malignant mesotheliomas, 35 adenomatoid tumors, and 20 benign lung tissues with reactive mesothelial cells. The sensitivity for IMP3, GLUT-1, and EMA was 37%, 21%, and 41%, respectively. The specificity for IMP3, GLUT-1, and EMA was 100%. When IMP3, GLUT1, and EMA combined, the sensitivity was 66% for IMP3/EMA staining, 53% for GLUT-1/EMA staining, and 45% for IMP3/GLUT-1. Use of IMP3 and EMA together is more helpful to distinguish malignant mesotheliomas from benign mesothelial proliferations than the use of IMP3 or EMA alone.