The differential diagnosis between pleural sarcomatoid mesothelioma and spindle cell/pleomorphic (sarcomatoid) carcinomas of the lung: evidence-based guidelines from the International Mesothelioma Panel and the MESOPATH National Reference Center

Nonmesothelial Spindle Cell Tumors of Pleura and Pericardium

Spindle cell lesions of the pleura and pericardium are rare. Distinction from sarcomatoid mesothelioma, which has a range of morphologic patterns, can be difficult, but accurate diagnosis matters. This article provides practical guidance for the diagnosis of pleural spindle cell neoplasms, focusing on primary lesions.

Diagnostic performance of immunohistochemistry markers for malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and subtypes. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) poses diagnostic challenges due to its resemblance to benign pleural pathologies and different histological subtypes. Several immunohistochemistry markers have been employed to aid in accurate diagnosis.

METHODS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of various immunohistochemistry markers in malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and its histological subtypes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the literature for articles on using different immunohistochemical markers in MPM and its histological subtypes. EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library were searched for studies published up to August 2023. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria to assess the quality of the included articles. Meta-analyses were performed to determine prevalence using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

103 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a diverse range of immunohistochemistry markers. EMA and desmin-loss exhibited high sensitivity (96% and 92%, respectively) in distinguishing malignant pleural mesothelioma from benign pleural pathologies. Specificity was notably high for both BAP1-loss and survivin expression at 100%. Subtype-specific analyses demonstrated that EMA and HEG1 were sensitive markers for epithelioid mesothelioma, while GLUT1 showed high sensitivity for sarcomatoid mesothelioma. In cases comparing epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma, CAM5.2 and calretinin displayed high sensitivity, while WT1 and BAP1-loss demonstrated exceptional specificity for malignant epithelioid mesothelioma. In the case of sarcomatoid mesothelioma and sarcomatoid lung carcinoma, GATA3 exhibited the most heightened sensitivity, while GATA3 and D2-40 displayed the best specificity for sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Immunohistochemistry markers are essential in accurately diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma and its histological subtypes. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comprehensive insight into the diagnostic performance of these markers, facilitating their potential clinical utility in the discrimination of malignant pleural mesothelioma from other pleural pathologies and the differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma subtypes.

Mesothelioma in the pleura, pericardium and peritoneum: Recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)

AIMS

Mesothelioma is a rare malignancy of the serosal membranes that is commonly related to exposure to asbestos. Despite extensive research and clinical trials, prognosis to date remains poor. Consistent, comprehensive and reproducible pathology reporting form the basis of all future interventions for an individual patient, but also ensures that meaningful data are collected to identify predictive and prognostic markers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This article details the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) process and the development of the international consensus mesothelioma reporting data set. It describes the 'core' and 'non-core' elements to be included in pathology reports for mesothelioma of all sites, inclusive of clinical, macroscopic, microscopic and ancillary testing considerations. An international expert panel consisting of pathologists and a medical oncologist produced a set of data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence, and in light of the changes in the 2021 WHO Classification of Tumours. The commentary focuses particularly upon new entities such as mesothelioma in situ and provides background on relevant and essential ancillary testing as well as implementation of the new requirement for tumour grading.

CONCLUSION

We recommend widespread and consistent implementation of this data set, which will facilitate accurate reporting and enhance the consistency of data collection, improve the comparison of epidemiological data, support retrospective research and ultimately help to improve clinical outcomes. To this end, all data sets are freely available worldwide on the ICCR website (www.iccr-cancer.org/data-sets).

The over diagnosis of diffuse mesothelioma: An analysis of 311 cases with recommendations for the avoidance of pitfalls

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of mesothelioma may be challenging. We investigated a large database of cases in order to determine the frequency with which a diagnosis of mesothelioma was made incorrectly and the most frequent causes of error.

DESIGN

A database including more than 4000 consultation cases of histologically confirmed mesothelioma was examined to identify cases in which mesothelioma was diagnosed by at least one pathologist when the available information pointed towards a different diagnosis.

RESULTS

There were 311 cases misdiagnosed as mesothelioma. The most common category was metastatic carcinoma to the pleura or peritoneum (129 cases: 73 lung carcinomas, 15 renal cell carcinomas). The next most common category was primary lung cancer (111 cases: 55 sarcomatoid carcinoma, 56 pseudomesotheliomatous carcinoma). The third most common category was primary malignancies arising from or near the serosal membranes (33 cases). The fourth most common category was fibrous pleurisy (38 cases). The most common errors were failure to consider important radiographic information regarding the gross distribution of tumor, lack of awareness or consideration of another malignancy, overreliance on certain immunohistochemical results, and failure to perform certain diagnostic histochemical, immunohistochemical, or ultrastructural studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a number of diagnostic pitfalls that can lead to the over diagnosis of mesothelioma. Careful attention to clinical and radiographic information as well as performance of appropriate ancillary tests can help to prevent such misdiagnoses. Detailed examples will be presented to assist in the avoidance of these pitfalls with emphasis on the most commonly observed errors.

Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a malignant tumor originating from the pleura, and its incidence has been increasing in recent years. Due to the insidious onset and strong local invasiveness of MPM, most patients are diagnosed in the late stage and early screening and treatment for high-risk populations are crucial. The treatment of MPM mainly includes surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Immunotherapy and electric field therapy have also been applied, leading to further improvements in patient survival. The Mesothelioma Group of the Yangtze River Delta Lung Cancer Cooperation Group (East China LUng caNcer Group, ECLUNG; Youth Committee) developed a national consensus on the clinical diagnosis and treatment of MPM based on existing clinical research evidence and the opinions of national experts. This consensus aims to promote the homogenization and standardization of MPM diagnosis and treatment in China, covering epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

Immunohistochemistry for Claudin-4 and BAP1 in the Differential Diagnosis between Sarcomatoid Carcinoma and Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma

(1) Background. In the differential diagnosis between sarcomatoid carcinoma (SC) and sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM), we aimed to investigate the role of Claudin-4 and BAP1, a panel recently used to distinguish conventional carcinoma from epithelioid mesothelioma. (2) Methods. We collected 41 surgical pleural biopsies of SM, 46 surgical resections of SC from different sites and 49 pleural biopsies of normal/hyperplastic mesothelium. All the cases were tested for Claudin-4 and BAP1 using immunohistochemistry. The statistical calculations of the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were performed. (3) Results: Claudin-4 was negative in 41/41 SMs, while it was positive in 18/36 (50.1%) SCs (eight diffusely, 10 focally) within their sarcomatous component. BAP1 was lost in 23/41 SMs, while it was regularly expressed in 46/46 SCs. All the cases of the normal/hyperplastic mesothelium were negative for Claudin-4 and retained the regular expression of BAP1. The Claudin-4 expression was useful for detecting SC (sensitivity, 39.1%; specificity, 100%) and the BAP1 loss was useful for diagnosing SM (sensitivity, 56.1%; specificity, 100%). (4) Conclusions. The staining for Claudin-4 and BAP1 exhibited a low/moderate sensitivity in diagnosing SC and SM (39.1% and 56.1%, respectively), but a very high specificity (100%). Claudin-4 was expressed only in SC and BAP1 loss was noted only in SM.

DNA methylation-based machine learning classification distinguishes pleural mesothelioma from chronic pleuritis, pleural carcinosis, and pleomorphic lung carcinomas

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to evaluate the diagnostic value of DNA methylation analysis in combination with machine learning to differentiate pleural mesothelioma (PM) from important histopathological mimics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

DNA methylation data of PM, lung adenocarcinomas, lung squamous cell carcinomas and chronic pleuritis was used to train a random forest as well as a support vector machine. These classifiers were validated using an independent validation cohort including pleural carcinosis and pleomorphic variants of lung adeno- and squamous cell carcinomas. Furthermore, we performed differential methylation analysis and used a deconvolution method to estimate the composition of the tumor microenvironment.

RESULTS

T-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding clearly separated PM from lung adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, but there was a considerable overlap between chronic pleuritis specimens and PM with low tumor cell content. In a nested cross validation on the training cohort, both machine learning algorithms achieved the same accuracies (94.8%). On the validation cohort, we observed high accuracies for the support vector machine (97.8%) while the random forest performed considerably worse (89.5%), especially in distinguishing PM from chronic pleuritis. Differential methylation analysis revealed promoter hypermethylation in PM specimens, including the tumor suppressor genes BCL11B, EBF1, FOXA1, and WNK2. Deconvolution of the stromal and immune cell composition revealed higher rates of regulatory T-cells and endothelial cells in tumor specimens and a heterogenous inflammation including macrophages, B-cells and natural killer cells in chronic pleuritis.

CONCLUSION

DNA methylation in combination with machine learning classifiers is a promising tool to reliably differentiate PM from chronic pleuritis and lung cancer, including pleomorphic carcinomas. Furthermore, our study highlights new candidate genes for PM carcinogenesis and shows that deconvolution of DNA methylation data can provide reasonable insights into the composition of the tumor microenvironment.

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.

Spindle Cell Tumors of the Pleura and the Peritoneum: Pathologic Diagnosis and Updates

A diverse group of both benign and malignant spindle cell tumors can involve the pleura or the peritoneum. Due to their rarity and overlapping morphologic features, these tumors can pose considerable diagnostic difficulty in surgical pathology. As these tumors differ in their prognosis and clinical management, their correct pathologic diagnosis is critical. In addition to histologic assessment, select immunohistochemical and molecular tools can aid the distinction among these tumors. In this review, we consider some of the major histologic differential diagnosis of spindle cell tumors involving these serosal membranes. This list of tumors includes: solitary fibrous tumor, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor, desmoid fibromatosis, synovial sarcoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma, spindle cell melanoma, dedifferentiated liposarcoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma. We describe their salient clinicopathologic and genetic findings, with a review on some of the recent discoveries on their molecular pathogenesis.

UHRF1 Immunohistochemical Staining Separates Benign Reactive Spindle Cell Mesothelial Proliferations From Sarcomatoid Mesotheliomas

The separation of benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations is often a difficult pathologic problem. UHRF1 (ubiquitin-like with plant homeodomain and ring finger domains-1) is a regulator of DNA methylation and an epigenetic driver of various human cancers. It has recently been reported that UHRF1 is overexpressed in mesotheliomas. We asked whether UHRF1 immunohistochemistry could be used to separate benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations. Initial studies showed that UHRF1 stained mesothelial cells but also endothelial and other non-neoplastic cells, so that accurate counting of positive mesothelial cells was difficult. Therefore, we ran dual UHRF1-AE1/AE3 stains on 2 tissue microarrays containing 40 reactive mesothelial proliferations and 61 mesotheliomas and only counted UHRF1 staining in keratin-positive cells. On average 10.3±8.6% (mean±SD; range: 0% to 36, median: 6.8%) of epithelioid mesothelioma cells stained compared with 5.3±4.8% (range: 0% to 15%, median: 4.1%) of reactive epithelial mesothelial cells. This difference was statistically significant but there was too much overlap to use diagnostically. In contrast, 37±26% (range: 2.5% to 95%, median: 31%) of cells in sarcomatoid mesotheliomas compared with 1.2±1.2% (range: 0% to 3.0%, median: 1.0%) of cells in reactive spindle cell mesothelial proliferations stained. To confirm this difference we stained whole sections of 21 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas and 19 cases of organizing pleuritis. Staining of mesothelial cells was seen in 2.1±2.4% (range: 0% to 6.8%, median: 1.0%) of organizing pleuritis cases and 44±22% (range: 14% to 90%, median: 41%) of sarcomatoid mesotheliomas. We conclude that dual UHRF1-AE1/AE3 immunohistochemistry is very useful for separating benign spindle cell mesothelial proliferations from sarcomatoid mesotheliomas.

A Case of Pulmonary Embolism with Sarcomatoid Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma with Long-Term Pleural Effusion

Background

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive tumor that originates from pleural mesothelial cells. In recent years, with the development of asbestos-related industries and the increase in air pollution, its incidence has been increased. The incidence of pulmonary embolism combined with sarcomatoid MPM is very low and the prognosis is extremely poor. We here report a case of a patient with long term of pleural effusion and finally diagnosed as pulmonary embolism with sarcomatoid MPM.

Case

A 75-year-old male with a 30-year history of asbestos exposure was admitted to our hospital due to chest pain and difficulty in breathing after exercise. Radiologic examination revealed pleural effusion, computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) suggests pulmonary embolism, and we consider pleural effusion caused by pulmonary embolism. After anticoagulant therapy for pulmonary embolism and pleural puncture to reduce pleural effusion, the patient's symptoms improved. However, after that, the patient was still admitted to the hospital several times because of recurrent chest pain and dyspnea symptoms, and radiologic examination always showed unexplained pleural effusion. Finally, pathological and immunohistochemical examinations of the pleural biopsy specimens were performed, and the diagnosis was confirmed as sarcomatoid MPM.

Conclusion

In summary, sarcomatoid MPM with pulmonary embolism is relatively rare, and the prognosis is poor. Clinicians need to be alert to its occurrence. When the first diagnosis is confirmed and the effect of targeted treatment is still not good, the possibility of other diseases should be considered. In clinical practice, pleural biopsy guided by PET-CT is a good choice for patients with sarcomatoid MPM who cannot tolerate open pleural biopsies or thoracoscopy. And patients should undergo pleural morphology and immunohistochemistry as soon as possible, which are helpful for timely diagnosis.

Prognostic Significance of JMJD3 Expression in Pleural Mesotheliomas

Pleural mesothelioma is a disease associated with asbestos exposure and patients often have poor prognosis. Biomarkers that can stratify tumours more efficiently are much sought after to enable more personalized treatment options and predict prognosis. Jumonji domain-containing protein D3 (JMJD3) has variable expression in a range of tumours. However, there has been much discordance in the immunohistochemical labelling of JMJD3 between cancers at different sites and ambiguity exists regarding its functional significance. Recent evidence suggests that although nuclear expression of JMJD3 has a demethylase role in most cancers, there are also demethylase-independent actions of JMJD3 that need to be explored including its cytoplasmic expression. We analysed JMJD3 labelling in 99 pleural mesothelioma tissues and correlated nuclear and cytoplasmic expression with survival outcomes. We found that low nuclear and high cytoplasmic expression were associated with poor survival outcomes in our cohort (p = 0.014 and p = 0.041, respectively). Additionally, we found that low nuclear expression of JMJD3 was frequent in the sarcomatoid subtype (p < 0.001). Finally, we showed that cytoplasmic labelling is an independent prognostic marker of poor survival. Our cohort only contained a small number of tumours with high cytoplasmic expression of JMJD3, and a larger cohort study may provide clearer stratification.

ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO guidelines for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma

The European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) task force brought together experts to update previous 2009 ERS/ESTS guidelines on management of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a rare cancer with globally poor outcome, after a systematic review of the 2009-2018 literature. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by this multidisciplinary group of experts. Diagnosis: pleural biopsies remain the gold standard to confirm the diagnosis, usually obtained by thoracoscopy but occasionally via image-guided percutaneous needle biopsy in cases of pleural symphysis or poor performance status. Pathology: standard staining procedures are insufficient in ∼10% of cases, justifying the use of specific markers, including BAP-1 and CDKN2A (p16) for the separation of atypical mesothelial proliferation from MPM. Staging: in the absence of a uniform, robust and validated staging system, we advise using the most recent 2016 8th TNM (tumour, node, metastasis) classification, with an algorithm for pretherapeutic assessment. Monitoring: patient's performance status, histological subtype and tumour volume are the main prognostic factors of clinical importance in routine MPM management. Other potential parameters should be recorded at baseline and reported in clinical trials. Treatment: (chemo)therapy has limited efficacy in MPM patients and only selected patients are candidates for radical surgery. New promising targeted therapies, immunotherapies and strategies have been reviewed. Because of limited data on the best combination treatment, we emphasize that patients who are considered candidates for a multimodal approach, including radical surgery, should be treated as part of clinical trials in MPM-dedicated centres.

When the Diagnosis of Mesothelioma Challenges Textbooks and Guidelines

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MPM) does not pose difficulties when presenting with usual clinico-radiologic features and morphology. Pathology textbooks and national/international guidelines generally describe the findings of classic MPM, underlining common clinical presentation, the gold standard of sampling techniques, usual morphologic variants, immunohistochemical results of several positive and negative primary antibodies in the differential diagnosis, and the role of novel molecular markers. Nevertheless, MPM often does not follow the golden rules in routine practice, while the literature generally does not sufficiently emphasize unusual features of its manifestation. This gap may potentially create problems for patients in sustaining a difficult diagnosis of MPM in clinical practice and during legal disputes. Indeed, the guidelines accidentally tend to favor the job of lawyers and pathologists defending asbestos-producing industries against patients suffering from MPM characterized by uncommon features. The current review is aimed at underlining the wide spectrum of clinical and radiological presentation of MPM, the possibility to consistently use cytology for diagnostic intent, the aberrant immunohistochemical expression using so-called specific negative and positive primary antibodies, and finally proposing some alternative and more unbiased approaches to the diagnosis of MPM.

Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma: A Clinicopathological and Immunohistochemical Study of 64 Cases

Sixty-four cases of sarcomatoid pleural mesothelioma represent the basis of this study. The patients are 51 men and 13 women between the ages of 42 and 79 years, who presented with symptoms of chest pain, cough, and weight loss. Diagnostic imaging showed the presence of diffuse pleural thickening with encasement of the lung parenchyma in all the cases. All patients had surgical resection via extrapleural pneumonectomy. By immunohistochemistry, all cases were positive for cytokeratin AE1/AE3; however, reactivity with other markers including keratin 5/6, calretinin, and D2-40 was seen in different proportions, whereas a few cases showed positive staining for GATA3, WT1, and p40. All tumors were negative for carcinomatous epitopes (carcinoembryonic antigen, CD15, and TTF1). Our findings show that even though the use of immunohistochemical stains plays an important role in the final interpretation, the best results are accomplished by a global interpretation of clinical, radiographical, and immunohistochemical findings. It is also important to highlight that it does not seem to be a single immunohistochemical stain that is pathognomonic of sarcomatoid mesothelioma and that some other stains that are commonly used for other tumors may also show positive staining in a small percentage of sarcomatoid mesotheliomas.

GATA3 is a useful immunohistochemical marker for distinguishing sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma from lung sarcomatoid carcinoma and organizing pleuritis

Sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma (SMM) tends to occur in the pleura and is morphologically similar to lung sarcomatoid carcinoma (LSC) and organizing pleuritis (OP). Because SMM often does not express mesothelial markers, it is very difficult to distinguish from LSC and OP. GATA-binding protein 3 (GATA3) is a specific immunohistochemical (IHC) marker of breast and urothelial carcinoma. We routinely find that GATA is expressed in MM; however, GATA3 expression in SMM and its reference value for distinguishing SMM from LSC and OP remain unclear. Here, we used IHC methods to detect the expression of GATA3 and classic mesothelial markers in 17 SMM, 12 LSC, and 7 OP cases. We detected the following expression rates in SMM versus LSC cases: GATA3 (70.6% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.008), calretinin (52.9% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.019), Wilms tumor (WT)-1 (64.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.000), D2-40 (47.1% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.126), CK5/6 (35.3% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.694), and pan-cytokeratin (CKpan) (88.2% vs. 100.0%, p = 0.498). The specificities of calretinin, WT-1, and GATA3 in distinguishing SMM from LSC were 91.7%, 100%, and 83.3%, respectively, and combinations of any two of these three markers exhibited 100% specificity for SMM. Notably, the sensitivity of calretinin+/WT1+ staining for SMM was only 23.5%, which increased to 64.7% after including GATA3. Furthermore, all OP cases showed partial or diffuse expression of CKpan, WT-1, and D2-40 but no GATA3 and calretinin expression. In conclusion, GATA3 is an IHC marker with excellent sensitivity and specificity for SMM, and the combined consideration of GATA3, calretinin, and WT-1 was best for distinguishing SMM from LSC. Moreover, CKpan, WT-1, and D2-40 had no value for distinguishing SMM from OP, and GATA3 and calretinin were the most specific markers for distinguishing these two lesions.

Pathology of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Despite multiple diagnostic toolkits, the diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma relies primarily on proper histologic assessment. The definitive diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma is based on the pathologic assessment of tumor tissue, which can be obtained from core biopsy sampling, pleurectomy, or other more extensive resections, such as extrapleural pneumonectomy. Given its rarity and overlapping microscopic features with other conditions, the histologic diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma is challenging. This review discusses the pathologic features and the differential diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma, including select diagnostic pitfalls.

How should molecular findings be integrated in the classification for lung cancer?

The use of molecular diagnostics in the diagnosis and management of patients with advanced lung cancer has become widespread. Although molecular classification has increasingly been incorporated in the pathologic classification of certain types of human tumors (particularly within the hematologic, glial, and bone/soft tissue malignancies), genetic findings have not been formally incorporated into the pathologic classification of lung cancer, which presently relies solely on the assessment of histologic and immunophenotypic characteristics. Whether molecular classification should be adopted in lung cancer would depend on the diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive impacts of such classification-and whether these impacts confer significant values additive to those derived from the routine histologic and immunophenotypic assessment. We provide a brief overview on the genetics of lung cancer, including adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and neuroendocrine tumors (small cell carcinoma, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, and carcinoid tumors). We consider the values of molecular information with some examples, in terms of the current diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive impacts. Finally, we discuss the conceptual and technical challenges of adopting a molecular classification for lung cancer in clinical management for patients. While there are conceptual and technical hurdles to tackle in implementing molecular classification in the pathologic classification of lung cancer, such integrated histologic-molecular diagnosis may allow one to personalize and optimize therapy for patients with advanced lung cancer.

The potential utility of GATA binding protein 3 for diagnosis of malignant pleural mesotheliomas

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is associated with asbestos exposure and poor outcomes. The usefulness of immunohistochemistry for diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, especially the desmoplastic type, is limited, and more effective markers are required. GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3) has been suggested as a diagnostic marker for sarcomatoid mesothelioma. The potential usefulness of GATA3 for prognostication and its clinical and pathological correlations in different subtypes of mesothelioma have not been evaluated. We investigated the immunohistochemical labeling and associations for GATA3, BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1), and Ki67 labeling in three major histological types of pleural malignant mesotheliomas. We examined 149 clinically annotated malignant mesotheliomas and assessed associations of GATA3 expression with clinical variables and prognosis. In addition, we labeled 10 cases of fibrous pleuritis with GATA3, all of which were negative. GATA3 was positive in 75 of 149 (50%) mesotheliomas, with the highest incidence of labeling seen in the sarcomatoid subtype (73%), compared with the biphasic (50%) and epithelioid (40%), mesotheliomas. A total of eight desmoplastic mesotheliomas showed labeling with GATA3. Patients whose tumors had sarcomatoid histology showed poorer survival than those with the other subtypes (p < 0.001), but overall GATA3 labeling did not have a statistically significant association with survival (p = 0.602). There was no association of GATA3 labeling and BAP1 status or Ki67 index. Our study includes the largest cohort of mesotheliomas that has been labeled for GATA3 to date. GATA3 is a useful marker for sarcomatoid mesothelioma, including the desmoplastic subtype. Discordance in GATA3 and BAP1 labeling of epithelioid and sarcomatoid components in the biphasic subtype is not uncommon.

The 2019 ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO Guidelines on the Management of Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare aggressive cancer, with insidious growth, and is associated with poor outcomes that have not improved over the years. A task force made up of members of the European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) societies, who are experts in the field of malignant mesothelioma, reviewed the literature from 2009 to 2018 to update the 2009 guidelines concerning epidemiology, diagnosis, staging, and treatment, including surgical, radiotherapy, and medical management, as well as palliative care to provide the best evidence-based recommendations for this patient population.

ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO guidelines for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma

The European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) task force brought together experts to update previous 2009 ERS/ESTS guidelines on management of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a rare cancer with globally poor outcome, after a systematic review of the 2009-2018 literature. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by this multidisciplinary group of experts. Diagnosis: pleural biopsies remain the gold standard to confirm the diagnosis, usually obtained by thoracoscopy but occasionally via image-guided percutaneous needle biopsy in cases of pleural symphysis or poor performance status. Pathology: standard staining procedures are insufficient in ∼10% of cases, justifying the use of specific markers, including BAP-1 and CDKN2A (p16) for the separation of atypical mesothelial proliferation from MPM. Staging: in the absence of a uniform, robust and validated staging system, we advise using the most recent 2016 8th TNM (tumour, node, metastasis) classification, with an algorithm for pre-therapeutic assessment. Monitoring: patient's performance status, histological subtype and tumour volume are the main prognostic factors of clinical importance in routine MPM management. Other potential parameters should be recorded at baseline and reported in clinical trials. Treatment: (chemo)therapy has limited efficacy in MPM patients and only selected patients are candidates for radical surgery. New promising targeted therapies, immunotherapies and strategies have been reviewed. Because of limited data on the best combination treatment, we emphasise that patients who are considered candidates for a multimodal approach, including radical surgery, should be treated as part of clinical trials in MPM-dedicated centres.

Comprehensive Molecular and Pathologic Evaluation of Transitional Mesothelioma Assisted by Deep Learning Approach: A Multi-Institutional Study of the International Mesothelioma Panel from the MESOPATH Reference Center

INTRODUCTION

Histologic subtypes of malignant pleural mesothelioma are a major prognostic indicator and decision denominator for all therapeutic strategies. In an ambiguous case, a rare transitional mesothelioma (TM) pattern may be diagnosed by pathologists either as epithelioid mesothelioma (EM), biphasic mesothelioma (BM), or sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM). This study aimed to better characterize the TM subtype from a histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular standpoint. Deep learning of pathologic slides was applied to this cohort.

METHODS

A random selection of 49 representative digitalized sections from surgical biopsies of TM was reviewed by 16 panelists. We evaluated BAP1 expression and CDKN2A (p16) homozygous deletion. We conducted a comprehensive, integrated, transcriptomic analysis. An unsupervised deep learning algorithm was trained to classify tumors.

RESULTS

The 16 panelists recorded 784 diagnoses on the 49 cases. Even though a Kappa value of 0.42 is moderate, the presence of a TM component was diagnosed in 51%. In 49% of the histological evaluation, the reviewers classified the lesion as EM in 53%, SM in 33%, or BM in 14%. Median survival was 6.7 months. Loss of BAP1 observed in 44% was less frequent in TM than in EM and BM. p16 homozygous deletion was higher in TM (73%), followed by BM (63%) and SM (46%). RNA sequencing unsupervised clustering analysis revealed that TM grouped together and were closer to SM than to EM. Deep learning analysis achieved 94% accuracy for TM identification.

CONCLUSION

These results revealed that the TM pattern should be classified as non-EM or at minimum as a subgroup of the SM type.

Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Genetic and Microenviromental Heterogeneity as an Unexpected Reading Frame and Therapeutic Challenge

Mesothelioma is a malignancy of serosal membranes including the peritoneum, pleura, pericardium and the tunica vaginalis of the testes. Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare disease with a global incidence in countries like Italy of about 1.15 per 100,000 inhabitants. Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) is the most common form of mesothelioma, accounting for approximately 80% of disease. Although rare in the global population, mesothelioma is linked to industrial pollutants and mineral fiber exposure, with approximately 80% of cases linked to asbestos. Due to the persistent asbestos exposure in many countries, a worldwide progressive increase in MPM incidence is expected for the current and coming years. The tumor grows in a loco-regional pattern, spreading from the parietal to the visceral pleura and invading the surrounding structures that induce the clinical picture of pleural effusion, pain and dyspnea. Distant spreading and metastasis are rarely observed, and most patients die from the burden of the primary tumor. Currently, there are no effective treatments for MPM, and the prognosis is invariably poor. Some studies average the prognosis to be roughly one-year after diagnosis. The uniquely poor mutational landscape which characterizes MPM appears to derive from a selective pressure operated by the environment; thus, inflammation and immune response emerge as key players in driving MPM progression and represent promising therapeutic targets. Here we recapitulate current knowledge on MPM with focus on the emerging network between genetic asset and inflammatory microenvironment which characterize the disease as amenable target for novel therapeutic approaches.

Claudin-4 shows superior specificity for mesothelioma vs non-small-cell lung carcinoma compared with MOC-31 and Ber-EP4

The distinction of malignant mesothelioma from non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) usually requires immunohistochemistry, but some broad-spectrum carcinoma markers stain mesotheliomas, and it remains unclear which broad-spectrum markers are most valuable for distinguishing these malignancies. Here, we directly compared the sensitivity and specificity of three broad-spectrum carcinoma markers, claudin-4, Ber-EP4, and MOC-31, for distinguishing NSCLC from mesothelioma. Immunohistochemistry was performed on tissue microarrays containing 68 epithelioid mesotheliomas, 31 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, and 147 non-small-cell lung cancers (53 adenocarcinomas, 60 squamous cell carcinomas, 13 large-cell carcinomas, and 21 sarcomatoid carcinomas). For adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large-cell carcinoma, claudin-4 staining was present in 103 of 126 cases (82%), MOC-31 staining was present in 112 of 126 cases (89%), and Ber-EP4 staining was present in 113 of 126 cases (90%); these values were not statistically different. Claudin-4 stained 0 of 68 (0%), MOC-31 stained 22 of 68 (32%), and Ber-EP4 stained 24 of 68 (35%) epithelioid mesotheliomas; thus, the specificities for NSCLC versus epithelioid mesothelioma were 100%, 68%, and 65%, respectively. Claudin-4 staining was present in 7 of 21 (33%), MOC-31 staining was present in 8 of 21 (38%), and Ber-EP4 staining was present in 5 of 21 (24%) sarcomatoid carcinomas. All three markers were negative in 12 of 21 (57%) sarcomatoid carcinomas. Sarcomatoid mesotheliomas were not stained with any of these markers. We conclude that claudin-4 has considerably greater specificity and comparable sensitivity to MOC-31 and Ber-EP4 for distinguishing NSCLC from epithelioid malignant mesothelioma. The use of all three markers may be necessary for sarcomatoid neoplasms, given their limited sensitivity.

Application of immunohistochemistry in diagnosis and management of malignant mesothelioma

Immunohistochemistry plays an indispensable role in accurate diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, particularly in morphologically challenging cases and in biopsy and cytology specimens, where tumor architecture is difficult or impossible to evaluate. Application of a targeted panel of mesothelial- and epithelial-specific markers permits correct identification of tumor lineage in the vast majority of cases. An immunopanel including two mesothelial markers (calretinin, CK5/6, WT-1, or D2-40) and two epithelial markers (MOC-31 and claudin-4) offers good sensitivity and specificity, with adjustments as appropriate for the differential diagnosis. Once mesothelial lineage is established, malignancy-specific studies can help verify a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. BAP1 loss, CDKN2A homozygous deletion, and MTAP loss are highly specific markers of malignancy in a mesothelial lesion, and they attain acceptable diagnostic sensitivity when applied as a diagnostic panel. Novel markers of malignancy, such as 5-hmC loss and increased EZH2 expression, are promising, but have not yet achieved widespread clinical adoption. Some diagnostic markers also have prognostic significance, and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry may predict tumor response to immunotherapy. Application and interpretation of these immnuomarkers should always be guided by clinical history, radiographic findings, and above all histomorphology.

Interobserver variation in the assessment of the sarcomatoid and transitional components in biphasic mesotheliomas

The percentage of sarcomatoid component has an impact on prognosis in patients with biphasic malignant pleural mesothelioma. Recent study showed that the transitional pattern similar to sarcomatoid component of malignant mesothelioma has negative prognostic significance. Practice guidelines recommend quantification of sarcomatoid component despite poor diagnostic reproducibility of biphasic mesothelioma among thoracic pathologists. The aim of this study was to determine the interobserver agreement in the quantification of sarcomatoid component, and in the diagnosis of a transitional component in the biphasic malignant mesothelioma. Thirteen experts in thoracic pathology reviewed the representative H&E and cytokeratin whole-slide images of the 54 biphasic mesotheliomas, without knowledge of BAP1 or p16 deletion status, and completed the survey of 25 questions. The overall interobserver agreement in the assessment of the percentage of the sarcomatoid component in 25% increments was good (wK = 0.62). Excellent agreement was present in 14 of 54 cases (26%), and 3 cases were unanimously scored. Excellent agreement was reached for the cases with 0-24% and > 75% of the sarcomatoid component.The most commonly used criteria for the diagnosis of sarcomatoid component were malignant spindle cells, frank sarcomatoid features and high N/C ratio. The overall interobserver agreement for transitional pattern was fair (wK = 0.40). Unanimous opinion about the absence of transitional pattern was observed in only one case. At least 70% agreement regarding the presence of transitional pattern was observed in 12 cases, with the rest of the cases showing a wide range of disagreement. Morphologic characteristics that favor transitional pattern over non-transitional include sheet-like growth of cohesive, plump, elongated epithelioid cells with well-defined cell borders and a tendency to transition into spindle cells. Our study defined precise morphologic criteria that may be used in the differential diagnosis between transitional pattern and other mesothelioma subtypes including sarcomatoid and epithelioid.

Localized malignant mesothelioma, an unusual and poorly characterized neoplasm of serosal origin: best current evidence from the literature and the International Mesothelioma Panel

Localized malignant mesotheliomas (LMM) is an uncommon and poorly recognized neoplasm. Its pathologic diagnosis is often surprising in patients with serosal/subserosal based localized tumors that are clinically suspicious for metastatic lesions or primary sarcomas. Once a tumor is diagnosed as "mesothelioma", LMM is often mistaken for diffuse malignant mesothelioma (DMM). Best currently available evidence about LMM was collected from the literature and cases diagnosed by members of the International Mesothelioma Panel (IMP). One hundred and one (101) LMM have been reported in the English literature. Patients had localized tumors with identical histopathologic features to DMM. Patients ranged in age from 6 to 82 years; 75% were men. Most (82%) of the tumors were intrathoracic. Others presented as intrahepatic, mesenteric, gastric, pancreatic, umbilical, splenic, and abdominal wall lesions. Tumors varied in size from 0.6 to 15 cm. Most patients underwent surgical resection and/or chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Median survival in a subset of patients was 29 months. Seventy two additional LMM from IMP institutions ranged in age from 28 to 95 years; 58.3% were men. Sixty tumors (83.3%) were intrathoracic, others presented in intraabdominal sites. Tumors varied in size from 1.2 to 19 cm. Median survival for 51 cases was 134 months. Best evidence was used to formulate guidelines for the diagnosis of LMM. It is important to distinguish LMM from DMM as their treatment and prognosis is different. A multidisciplinary approach is needed for the diagnosis of LMM as it shows identical histopathology and immunophenotype to DMM.

Asbestos, Smoking and Lung Cancer: An Update

This review updates the scientific literature concerning asbestos and lung cancer, emphasizing cumulative exposure and synergism between asbestos exposure and tobacco smoke, and proposes an evidence-based and equitable approach to compensation for asbestos-related lung cancer cases. This update is based on several earlier reviews written by the second and third authors on asbestos and lung cancer since 1995. We reevaluated the peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies. In addition, selected in vivo and in vitro animal studies and molecular and cellular studies in humans were included. We conclude that the mechanism of lung cancer causation induced by the interdependent coaction of asbestos fibers and tobacco smoke at a biological level is a multistage stochastic process with both agents acting conjointly at all times. The new knowledge gained through this review provides the evidence for synergism between asbestos exposure and tobacco smoke in lung cancer causation at a biological level. The evaluated statistical data conform best to a multiplicative model for the interaction effects of asbestos and smoking on the lung cancer risk, with no requirement for asbestosis. Any asbestos exposure, even in a heavy smoker, contributes to causation. Based on this information, we propose criteria for the attribution of lung cancer to asbestos in smokers and non-smokers.

Approaches to Tumor Classification in Pulmonary Sarcomatoid Carcinoma

Pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma (PSC) is a heterogeneous category of primary lung cancer accounting from 0.3% to 3% of all primary lung malignancies. According to the most recent 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, PSC includes several different variants of malignant epithelial tumors (carcinomas) histologically mimicking sarcomas showing or entirely lacking a conventional component of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Thus, this rare subheading of lung neoplasms includes pleomorphic carcinoma, spindle cell carcinoma, giant cell carcinoma, pulmonary blastoma, and carcinosarcoma. A diagnosis of PSC may be suspected on small biopsy or cytology, but commonly requires a surgical resection to reach a conclusive definition. The majority of patients with PSC consists of elderly, smoking men with a large, peripheral mass characterized by well-defined margins. However, presentation with a central, polypoid endobronchial lesion is well-documented, particularly in pleomorphic carcinoma and carcinosarcoma showing a squamous cell carcinoma component. As expected, PSC may pose diagnostic problems and immunohistochemistry is largely used when pathologists deal these tumors in routine practice. Indeed, PSC tends to overexpress molecules associated with the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, such as vimentin, but the panel of immunostains also includes epithelial markers (cytokeratins, EMA), TTF-1, p40 and negative markers (e.g., melanocytic, mesothelial and sarcoma-related primary antibodies). Although rare, PSC has increased their interest among oncologist community for different reasons: a. identification of the epithelial-to-mesenchymal phenomenon as a major mechanism of secondary resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors; b. over-expression of PD-L1 and effective treatment with immunotherapy; c. identification of c-MET exon 14 skipping mutation representing an effective target to crizotinib and other specific inhibitors. In this review, the feasibility of the diagnosis of PSC, its differential diagnosis and novel molecular findings characterizing this group of lung tumor are discussed.

The Prognostic Significance Of JMJD3 In Primary Sarcomatoid Carcinoma Of The Lung, A Rare Subtype Of Lung Cancer

Introduction

Primary sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung (PSC) is a rare subtype of non-small cell lung cancer, which has a bad prognosis and lacks biomarkers for its diagnosis and prognosis. Recent studies suggested that KDM6B (lysine demethylase 6B), also known as Jumonji domain-containing protein D3 (JMJD3), plays an oncogenic role in various human cancers. However, abnormalities of JMJD3 in sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung and its clinical prognostic significance have not been determined. Therefore, the present study aimed to ascertain the relationship between JMJD3 and PSC.

Materials and methods

In this study, immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed to examine the expression of JMJD3 in a tissue microarray (TMA) containing 96 cases of PSC.

Result

Overexpression of JMJD3 was observed in nuclei of the PSC cells. Further analyses indicated that the overexpression of JMJD3 was significantly associated with tumor size, pN stage, and clinical stage. By univariate survival analysis, positive expression of JMJD3 was significantly correlated with shortened patient survival. More importantly, multivariate analysis identified JMJD3 as an independent prognostic factor for sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung.

Conclusion

These findings provide evidence that JMJD3 protein levels, as examined by IHC, may act as a novel prognostic biomarker for patients with primary sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung.

Mesothelioma: Scientific clues for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy

Mesothelioma affects mostly older individuals who have been occupationally exposed to asbestos. The global mesothelioma incidence and mortality rates are unknown, because data are not available from developing countries that continue to use large amounts of asbestos. The incidence rate of mesothelioma has decreased in Australia, the United States, and Western Europe, where the use of asbestos was banned or strictly regulated in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrating the value of these preventive measures. However, in these same countries, the overall number of deaths from mesothelioma has not decreased as the size of the population and the percentage of old people have increased. Moreover, hotspots of mesothelioma may occur when carcinogenic fibers that are present in the environment are disturbed as rural areas are being developed. Novel immunohistochemical and molecular markers have improved the accuracy of diagnosis; however, about 14% (high-resource countries) to 50% (developing countries) of mesothelioma diagnoses are incorrect, resulting in inadequate treatment and complicating epidemiological studies. The discovery that germline BRCA1-asssociated protein 1 (BAP1) mutations cause mesothelioma and other cancers (BAP1 cancer syndrome) elucidated some of the key pathogenic mechanisms, and treatments targeting these molecular mechanisms and/or modulating the immune response are being tested. The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma is controversial as it is difficult to predict who will benefit from aggressive management, even when local therapies are added to existing or novel systemic treatments. Treatment outcomes are improving, however, for peritoneal mesothelioma. Multidisciplinary international collaboration will be necessary to improve prevention, early detection, and treatment.

Best Practices Recommendations for Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry in Lung Cancer

Since the 2015 WHO classification was introduced into clinical practice, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has figured prominently in lung cancer diagnosis. In addition to distinction of small cell versus non-small cell carcinoma, patients' treatment of choice is directly linked to histologic subtypes of non-small cell carcinoma, which pertains to IHC results, particularly for poorly differentiated tumors. The use of IHC has improved diagnostic accuracy in the classification of lung carcinoma, but the interpretation of IHC results remains challenging in some instances. Also, pathologists must be aware of many interpretation pitfalls, and the use of IHC should be efficient to spare the tissue for molecular testing. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee received questions on practical application and interpretation of IHC in lung cancer diagnosis. After discussions in several International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee meetings, the issues and caveats were summarized in terms of 11 key questions covering common and important diagnostic situations in a daily clinical practice with some relevant challenging queries. The questions cover topics such as the best IHC markers for distinguishing NSCLC subtypes, differences in thyroid transcription factor 1 clones, and the utility of IHC in diagnosing uncommon subtypes of lung cancer and distinguishing primary from metastatic tumors. This article provides answers and explanations for the key questions about the use of IHC in diagnosis of lung carcinoma, representing viewpoints of experts in thoracic pathology that should assist the community in the appropriate use of IHC in diagnostic pathology.

Pleural malignant mesothelioma versus pleuropulmonary synovial sarcoma: a clinicopathological study of 22 cases with molecular analysis and survival data

The aim of this study was to carry out a comparative analysis by transducin-like enhancer of split 1 (TLE1) immunohistochemistry and molecular analysis of SYT-SSX, for 16 pleural predominantly sarcomatoid mesotheliomas and six cases of pleuropulmonary synovial sarcoma (five pleural in distribution only, with one case of a predominantly subpleural upper lobe synovial sarcoma), all of which were solely or predominantly monophasic. Our comparison included survival and some clinical data. We consider that the following points emerged from this study.

How to assess the best immunohistochemical panel in the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma in a pathology lab

BACKGROUND

malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare tumor with a challenging diagnosis. Even if, clinical data are mandatory to suspect the diagnosis, the positive diagnosis is based on microscopic features. Morphologic features are still the port of call of the diagnosis but their non specific character and the multiplicity of differential diagnoses made the immunohistochemical markers mandatory for the diagnosis. Many antibodies with a positive diagnostic value including claretinin, mesothelin, WT1 and antibodies with a negative diagnostic value including TTF1, EMA, CD15 are recommended by the scientific societies. This is due to the diagnostic limits of every antibody which necessitate the association of multiple antibodies. In the diagnostic demarch, pathologists deal with different antibodies and clones. Even if many recommendations are available, every pathology lab has to experiment its own antibodies in order to optimize the routine diagnostic demarch especially in low-income country. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic value of different antibodies available in our lab and to recommend a decisional flowchart.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

we conducted a retrospective study about 30 MPM diagnosed over a 20-year-period. The different techniques were realized manually. The different antibodies used were anti-calretinin, anti-Epithelial Membrane Antigen (EMA), anti-mesothelin, anti-Thyroid Transcription Factor 1 (TTF1), anti-ACE, anti-cytokeratin, anti-vimentin, anti-CD15, anti-cytokeratin 5/6, anti-bcl2, and anti-CD99 and anti-CD34 antibodies. The sensitivity and specificity of these antibodies were assessed.

RESULTS

the microscopic exam concluded to an epithelioid mesothelioma (EM) in 17 cases, sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM) in four cases and biphasic mesothelioma (BM) in nine cases. The immunohistochemical study was performed in all cases. A mean of eight antibodies was used in every case, average 4 to 20 antibodies. The immunohistochemical study was repeated from 2 to 5 times in 15 cases and concerned a mean of 3 antibodies per case. In EM and BM, the antibodies with positive predictive value and highest sensitivity were calretinin, EMA, cytokeratin, and vimentin reaching respectively a sensitivity of 86.2%, 89.7%, 92.9% and 89.3%. The most valuable antibodies with negative predictive value were TTF1, CD15 and ACE that presented a specificity reaching respectively 100%. In sarcomatoid mesothelima, the most sensitive antibody was the cytokeratin antibody.

CONCLUSION

these results yielded to a diagnostic flowchart that we can use in routine practice and that is in accordance with the literature findings. Many diagnostic and technical pitfalls have to be known by pathologists when dealing with MPM.

New Insights on Diagnostic Reproducibility of Biphasic Mesotheliomas: A Multi-Institutional Evaluation by the International Mesothelioma Panel From the MESOPATH Reference Center

INTRODUCTION

The 2015 WHO classification of tumors categorized malignant mesothelioma into epithelioid, biphasic (BMM), and sarcomatoid (SMM) for prognostic relevance and treatment decisions. The survival of BMM is suspected to correlate with the amount of the sarcomatoid component. The criteria for a sarcomatoid component and the interobserver variability between pathologists for identifying this component are not well described. In ambiguous cases, a "transitional" (TMM) subtype has been proposed but was not accepted as a specific subtype in the 2015 WHO classification. The aims of this study were to evaluate the interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of BMM, to determine the nature and the significance of TMM subtype, and to relate the percentage of sarcomatoid component with survival. The value of staining for BRCA-1-associated protein (BAP1) and CDKN2A(p16) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were also assessed with respect to each of the tumoral components.

METHODS

The study was conducted by the International Mesothelioma Panel supported by the French National Cancer Institute, the network of rare cancer (EURACAN) and in collaboration with the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The patient cases include a random group of 42 surgical biopsy samples diagnosed as BMM with evaluation of SMM component by the French Panel of MESOPATH experts was selected from the total series of 971 BMM cases collected from 1998 to 2016. Fourteen international pathologists with expertise in mesothelioma reviewed digitally scanned slides (hematoxylin and eosin - stained and pan-cytokeratin) without knowledge of prior diagnosis or outcome. Cases with at least 7 of 14 pathologists recognizing TMM features were selected as a TMM group. Demographic, clinical, histopathologic, treatment, and follow-up data were retrieved from the MESOBANK database. BAP1 (clone C-4) loss and CDKN2A(p16) homozygous deletion (HD) were assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and FISH, respectively. Kappa statistics were applied for interobserver agreement and multivariate analysis with Cox regression adjusted for age and gender was performed for survival analysis.

RESULTS

The 14 panelists recorded a total of 544 diagnoses. The interobserver correlation was moderate (weighted Kappa = 0.45). Of the cases originally classified as BMM by MESOPATH, the reviewers agreed in 71% of cases (385 of 544 opinions), with cases classified as pure epithelioid in 17% (93 of 544), and pure sarcomatoid in 12% (66 of 544 opinions). Diagnosis of BMM was made on morphology or IHC alone in 23% of the cases and with additional assessment of IHC in 77% (402 of 544). The median overall survival (OS) of the 42 BMM cases was 8 months. The OS for BMM was significantly different from SMM and epithelioid malignant mesothelioma (p < 0.0001). In BMM, a sarcomatoid component of less than 80% correlated with a better survival (p = 0.02). There was a significant difference in survival between BMM with TMM showing a median survival at 6 months compared to 12 months for those without TMM (p < 0.0001). BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 42) of the total cases and in both components in 26%. We also compared the TMM group to that of more aggressive patterns of epithelioid subtypes of mesothelioma (solid and pleomorphic of our large MESOPATH cohort). The curve of transitional type was persistently close to the OS curve of the sarcomatoid component. The group of sarcomatoid, transitional, and pleomorphic mesothelioma were very close to each other. We then considered the contribution of BAP1 immunostaining and loss of CDKN2A(p16) by FISH. BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 41) of the total cases and in both component in 27% of the cases (11 of 41). There was no significant difference in BAP1 loss between the TMM and non-TMM groups. HD CDKN2A(p16) was detected in 74% of the total cases with no significant difference between the TMM and non-TMM groups. In multivariate analysis, TMM morphology was an indicator of poor prognosis with a hazard ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.6 - 8.0; and p = 0.003 even when compared to the presence of HD CDKN2A(p16) on sarcomatoid component (hazard ratio = 4.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 - 16.3, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The interobserver concordance among the international mesothelioma and French mesothelioma panel suggests clinical utility for an updated definition of biphasic mesothelioma that allows better stratification of patients into risk groups for treatment decisions, systemic anticancer therapy, or selection for surgery or palliation. We also have shown the usefulness of FISH detection of CDKN2A(p16) HD compared to BAP1 loss on the spindle cell component for the separation in ambiguous cases between benign florid stromal reaction from true sarcomatoid component of biphasic mesothelioma. Taken together our results further validate the concept of transitional pattern as a poor prognostic indicator.

SFRP Tumour Suppressor Genes Are Potential Plasma-Based Epigenetic Biomarkers for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is associated with asbestos exposure. Asbestos can induce chronic inflammation which in turn can lead to silencing of tumour suppressor genes. Wnt signaling pathway can be affected by chronic inflammation and is aberrantly activated in many cancers including colon and MPM. SFRP genes are antagonists of Wnt pathway, and SFRPs are potential tumour suppressors in colon, gastric, breast, ovarian, and lung cancers and mesothelioma. This study investigated the expression and DNA methylation of SFRP genes in MPM cells lines with and without demethylation treatment. Sixty-six patient FFPE samples were analysed and have showed methylation of SFRP2 (56%) and SFRP5 (70%) in MPM. SFRP2 and SFRP5 tumour-suppressive activity in eleven MPM lines was confirmed, and long-term asbestos exposure led to reduced expression of the SFRP1 and SFRP2 genes in the mesothelium (MeT-5A) via epigenetic alterations. Finally, DNA methylation of SFRPs is detectable in MPM patient plasma samples, with methylated SFRP2 and SFRP5 showing a tendency towards greater abundance in patients. These data suggested that SFRP genes have tumour-suppresive activity in MPM and that methylated DNA from SFRP gene promoters has the potential to serve as a biomarker for MPM patient plasma.