The diagnostic role of BAP1 in serous effusions

Different Frequency and Clinical Role for MTAP Loss in Pleural and Peritoneal Mesothelioma

The objective of this study was to analyze the expression and prognostic role of methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) in mesothelioma. MTAP protein expression by immunohistochemistry was analyzed in 113 mesotheliomas (60 pleural and 53 peritoneal), consisting of 36 effusions and 77 surgical specimens. MTAP expression was fully lost in 38 tumors and partially lost in 8 tumors. Loss of expression was significantly more common in effusions compared with biopsies/surgical resection specimens (20/36 vs. 26/77; P =0.017), and in pleural compared with peritoneal mesotheliomas (35/60 vs. 11/53; P <0.001). MTAP performed less robustly than BAP1 in comparative analysis of 57 tumors previously analyzed for expression of the latter protein (46 vs. 25 cases with loss of expression). In survival analysis for 69 patients with partial clinical data, male gender was significantly associated with shorter overall survival (OS; P =0.042), whereas loss of MTAP was associated with a trend for shorter OS ( P =0.058), with no prognostic role for patient age ( P =0.379) or anatomic site ( P =0.381). The association between loss of MTAP and poor OS became significant when survival analysis was limited to patients with pleural mesothelioma ( P =0.018). In conclusion, loss of MTAP expression is more frequent in pleural compared with peritoneal mesothelioma and has limited diagnostic relevance at the latter anatomic site. More frequent loss in effusion specimens suggests a role for this marker in effusion cytology. MTAP loss in pleural mesothelioma is associated with poor survival.

PET-CT-guided versus CT-guided biopsy in suspected malignant pleural thickening: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Pleural biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis of pleural malignancy but a significant proportion will have an inconclusive biopsy despite ongoing clinical suspicion of malignancy. We investigated whether positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) targeted pleural biopsy is superior to standard CT-guided pleural biopsy following an initial non-diagnostic biopsy.

METHODS

The TARGET trial was a multicentre, parallel group randomised trial. Patients with a previous inconclusive pleural biopsy but an ongoing suspicion of pleural malignancy were randomised (1:1) to receive either CT-guided biopsy (standard care) or PET-CT followed by a targeted CT biopsy (intervention). The primary outcome was pleural malignancy correctly identified from the trial biopsy.

RESULTS

Between September 2015 and September 2018, 59 participants were randomised from eight UK hospital sites: 29 to CT-only followed by targeted biopsy and 30 to PET-CT followed by targeted biopsy. The proportion of pleural malignancy correctly identified was similar between the groups (risk ratio 1.03 (95% CI 0.83-1.29); p=0.77). The sensitivity of the trial biopsy to identify pleural malignancy was 79% (95% CI 54-94%) in the CT-only group versus 81% (95% CI 54-96%) in the PET-CT group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results do not support the practice of PET-CT to guide pleural biopsies in patients with a previous non-diagnostic biopsy. The diagnostic sensitivity in the CT-only group was higher than anticipated and supports the practice of repeating a CT-guided biopsy following an inconclusive result if clinical suspicion of malignancy persists.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

BAP1 and Claudin-4, But Not MTAP, Reliably Distinguish Borderline and Low-grade Serous Ovarian Tumors From Peritoneal Mesothelioma

Peritoneal mesothelioma (PM) and serous neoplasms can be difficult to differentiate, particularly in small biopsies. BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) is expressed in benign tissues, but over 50% of PMs demonstrate complete loss of nuclear expression. Claudin-4, a tight junction protein, is expressed in most epithelial tumors but not in mesotheliomas. Methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) is frequently co-deleted with cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2a in mesotheliomas. These markers have proven useful in separating mesothelioma from its mimics, particularly when tumors are pleural based. In the peritoneum, BAP1 loss has been rarely reported in high-grade serous carcinomas, but overall, these markers have been minimally evaluated in ovarian serous borderline tumors and low-grade serous carcinomas. Thus, we assessed the utility of BAP1, claudin-4, and MTAP in the differential diagnosis of PM and low-grade serous neoplasms. Eighteen PM (16 epithelioid, 1 biphasic, and 1 sarcomatous), 24 low-grade serous carcinomas, and 25 serous borderline tumors were stained for BAP1, claudin-4, and MTAP. Loss of BAP1 nuclear expression was observed in 12 (67%) PM (11 epithelioid, 1 biphasic) but was retained in all serous tumors. Claudin-4 was positive in all serous tumors and negative in all PM. Complete loss of cytoplasmic MTAP was noted in 3 (17%) PMs and 1 (4%) serous borderline tumor, while all low-grade serous carcinomas showed retained expression. BAP1 loss reliably distinguishes PM from serous tumors, although it lacks sensitivity. Claudin-4 is a reliable marker to exclude PM. MTAP loss may occur in both PM and serous tumors, and thus is not useful in distinguishing these entities.

Somatic Mutation of BAP1 Can Lead to Expression Loss in Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: Next Generation Sequencing and IHC Analysis in A Large Single Institute Cohort

Introduction. As a tumor suppressor, germline and somatic inactivation of BRCA1 associated protein 1 gene (BAP1) is a common finding in mesothelioma, melanocytic tumors, clear cell renal cell carcinoma and several other epithelial, mesenchymal and neural tumors. Incidence of BAP1 genetic alterations and subsequent expression loss has not been well established in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) by large-scale studies. Design. After IRB approval, a total of 356 NSCLC cases of our institution between July 2016 and June 2020 were reviewed. The study cohort consisted of 214 (60%) adenocarcinomas, 89 (25%) squamous cell carcinomas, and 53 (15%) diagnosed as "non-small cell lung carcinoma" without specified subtype. All tumors underwent comprehensive target cancer gene next generation sequencing (Oncomine Assay). The protein expression status of BAP1 was subsequently evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Results. BAP1 somatic mutations were detected in 8 NSCLC tumors (incidence: 2.2%). Tumors harboring BAP1 mutations were all diagnosed at advanced stage and carried at least one additional genetic alteration. Immunohistochemically, four tumors showed complete loss of BAP1 protein expression, including two adenocarcinomas which harbored different missense BAP1 mutations and another two with bioinformatically predicated deleterious frameshifting mutations. Conclusion. Compared with known BAP1 loss associated other malignancies, such as mesothelioma, inactivation of BAP1 by somatic mutation is a rare occurrence in NSCLC. BAP1 mutations and loss of expression in NSCLC are accompanied by other complex genetic alternations, suggesting BAP1 mutation maybe a late event NSCLC carcinogenesis.

Ancillary Diagnostic Investigations in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

For a number of patients presenting with an undiagnosed pleural effusion, frailty, medical co-morbidity or personal choice may preclude the use of pleural biopsy, the gold standard investigation for diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). In this review article, we outline the most recent evidence on ancillary diagnostic tests which may be used to support a diagnosis of MPM where histological samples cannot be obtained or where results are non-diagnostic. Immunocytochemical markers, molecular techniques, diagnostic biomarkers and imaging techniques are discussed. No adjunctive test has a sensitivity and specificity profile to support use in isolation; however, correlation of pleural fluid cytology with relevant radiology and supplementary biomarkers can enable an MDT-consensus clinico-radiological-cytological diagnosis to be made where further invasive tests are not possible or not appropriate. Diagnostic challenges surrounding non-epithelioid MPM are recognised, and there is a critical need for reliable and non-invasive investigative tools in this population.

Guidelines for Regulated Cell Death Assays: A Systematic Summary, A Categorical Comparison, A Prospective

Over the past few years, the field of regulated cell death continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple regulated cell death pathways are being unveiled. Meanwhile, researchers are focused on targeting these regulated pathways which are closely associated with various diseases for diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. However, the complexity of the mechanisms and the difficulties of distinguishing among various regulated types of cell death make it harder to carry out the work and delay its progression. Here, we provide a systematic guideline for the fundamental detection and distinction of the major regulated cell death pathways following morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Moreover, a comprehensive evaluation of different assay methods is critically reviewed, helping researchers to make a reliable selection from among the cell death assays. Also, we highlight the recent events that have demonstrated some novel regulated cell death processes, including newly reported biomarkers (e.g., non-coding RNA, exosomes, and proteins) and detection techniques.

Pleural mesothelioma classification update

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

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

BACKGROUND

A number of ancillary tests have been developed that aid in the diagnosis of mesothelioma in cytology specimens. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether testing for BAP1 and CDKN2A/p16 status in effusion specimens preceding the tissue diagnosis of mesothelioma would improve diagnostic accuracy and allow an earlier diagnosis of malignancy.

METHODS

The study cohort included 99 matched cytology fluid specimens from 74 patients with a surgical specimen diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (67 epithelioid, 7 biphasic, 55 pleural, and 19 peritoneal). BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were performed retrospectively.

RESULTS

BAP1 or p16 FISH testing revealed a loss in 7 of 18 (39%) samples originally categorized as benign/reactive, 20 of 33 (61%) interpretable samples categorized as atypical, and 10 of 14 (71%) cases suspicious for mesothelioma. In some cases, the diagnosis of mesothelioma could have been made up to 9 months before biopsy. Similarly, loss of BAP1 or p16 was found in 28 of 30 (93%) samples categorized as malignant, with some cases diagnosable up to 6 months before biopsy. Overall, loss of BAP1 and/or CDKN2A/p16 homozygous deletion would change the diagnostic interpretation in 37 of 60 (62%) (P = .07) effusion specimens, particularly in pleural effusions (32 of 48 samples) (P = .002). The sensitivity of morphologic interpretation alone was 30.3%; however, adding testing for BAP1 and p16 resulted in an increase in sensitivity to 68.7%. (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that routine use of BAP1 immunochemistry and p16 FISH as adjunctive tests improves the diagnostic accuracy of cytology specimens and potentially allows an earlier diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.

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.

The value of BRCA-1-associated protein 1 expression and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A deletion to distinguish peritoneal malignant mesothelioma from peritoneal location of carcinoma in effusion cytology specimens

OBJECTIVE

Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM), represents 30% of all malignant mesothelioma, and is characterised by a difficult diagnosis and different presentations. Immunohistochemistry has improved the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in the differential diagnosis between metastatic adenocarcinoma and malignant mesothelioma, and loss of BRCA-1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) expression is correlated with BAP1 somatic or constitutional genetic defects. Furthermore, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) is frequently lost in DMPM. In the present study, we assessed the value of integrating BAP1 in the panel of antibodies used for the diagnosis of DMPM in cytological samples. Since p16 fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) assay could constitute an additional useful adjunct, results of BAP1 immunostaining and p16 FISH assays have been compared.

METHODS

Forty-eight DMPM patients and 71 peritoneal carcinomatosis patients were included. BAP1 immunohistochemical and CDKN2A FISH techniques were performed on tissue specimens of DMPM (n = 48) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (n = 71) then on cell-block of DMPM (n = 16), peritoneal carcinomatosis (n = 25) and peritoneal benign effusion (n = 5).

RESULTS

Loss of BAP1 expression was observed in 56.3% of DMPM while none of the peritoneal carcinoma specimens showed BAP1 loss of expression. CDKN2A loss was observed in 34.9% DMPM and 2.1% peritoneal carcinoma. Although BAP1 immunostaining was successful in 100% of cytological DMPM samples, CDKN2A deletion status could be obtained for 75% of DMPM cases.

CONCLUSION

BAP1 immunostaining represents an objective and reproducible diagnostic biomarker for peritoneal mesothelioma in effusion cytology specimens and should be preferred to CDKN2A FISH analysis on these precious samples.

Pathologic Considerations and Standardization in Mesothelioma Clinical Trials

The accurate diagnosis of mesothelioma is critical for the appropriate clinical management of this cancer. Many issues complicate making the diagnosis of mesothelioma including the presence of reactive mesothelial cells in benign pleural effusions, the heterogeneity of mesothelioma histopathology, the relatively high incidence of other epithelial malignancies that metastasize to the pleura, and primary sarcomas that arise within the pleura. Given the rapidly evolving field of molecular profiling and the need for translational correlates in mesothelioma clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer-Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was convened in March 2017 to develop a consensus on standard pathology guidelines for future NCI-sponsored clinical trials in mesothelioma. This consensus statement covers recommendations for specimen handling, pathologic classification and diagnosis, biobanking, and tissue correlative studies.

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.

Biomarkers in the diagnosis of pleural diseases: a 2018 update

The use of biomarkers on pleural fluid (PF) specimens may assist the decision-making process and enhance clinical diagnostic pathways. Three paradigmatic examples are heart failure, tuberculosis and, particularly, malignancy. An elevated PF concentration of the amino-terminal fragment of probrain natriuretic peptide (>1500 pg/ml) is a hallmark of acute decompensated heart failure. Adenosine deaminase, interferon-γ and interleukin-27 are three valuable biomarkers for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy, yet only the first has been firmly established in clinical practice. Diagnostic PF biomarkers for malignancy can be classified as soluble-protein based, immunocytochemical and nucleic-acid based. Soluble markers (e.g. carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 15-3, mesothelin) are only indicative of cancer, but not confirmatory. Immunocytochemical studies on PF cell blocks allow: (a) to distinguish mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial proliferations (e.g. loss of BAP1 nuclear expression, complemented by the demonstration of p16 deletion using fluorescence in situ hybridization, indicate mesothelioma); (b) to separate mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma (e.g. calretinin, CK 5/6, WT-1 and D2-40 are markers of mesothelioma, whereas CEA, EPCAM, TTF-1, napsin A, and claudin 4 are markers of carcinoma); and (c) to reveal tumor origin in pleural metastases of an unknown primary site (e.g. TTF-1 and napsin A for lung adenocarcinoma, p40 for squamous lung cancer, GATA3 and mammaglobin for breast cancer, or synaptophysin and chromogranin A for neuroendocrine tumors). Finally, PF may provide an adequate sample for analysis of molecular markers to guide patients with non-small cell lung cancer to appropriate targeted therapies. Molecular testing must include, at least, mutations of epidermal growth-factor receptor and BRAF V600E, translocations of rat osteosarcoma and anaplastic lymphoma kinase, and expression of programmed death ligand 1.