TRAF7 mutations and immunohistochemical study of uterine adenomatoid tumor compared with malignant mesothelioma

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

CONTEXT.—

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

OBJECTIVE.—

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

DATA SOURCES.—

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

CONCLUSIONS.—

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

Adenomatoid Tumor Mimicking Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Case Report

An adenomatoid tumor (AT) is a benign lesion, which is commonly located in the genital tract of both sexes. We present a case of a 66-yr-old woman with the unusual characteristics of an AT mimicking peritoneal carcinomatosis. The tumor was detected incidentally by ultrasound examination, and an ensuing imaging study raised suspicion of ovarian cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis. From the pathologic diagnosis of frozen specimens, clear cell carcinoma was noted and the patient subsequently underwent cytoreductive surgery. An 8.5-cm-sized mass was observed on the uterine serosa, extending into the myometrium. In addition, multi-cystic nodular lesions were identified in the omentum, appendiceal and small bowel serosa, and the peritoneum. After histologic and extensive immunohistochemical examinations, the final diagnosis was AT. Recognition of the diverse presentations of AT is crucial for accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment, as these tumors can involve multiple sites and mimic peritoneal carcinomatosis, potentially leading to a misdiagnosis of malignancy.

Molecular and Immunohistochemical Testing in Mesothelioma and Other Mesothelial Lesions

CONTEXT.—

Molecular testing has increasingly been utilized in the evaluation of mesothelioma. Diffuse mesothelioma comprises multiple distinct genetic subgroups. While most diffuse mesotheliomas lack oncogenic kinase mutations and instead harbor alterations involving tumor suppressors and chromatin regulators, a minor subset of tumors is characterized by uncommon alterations such as germline mutations, genomic near-haploidization, ALK rearrangement, ATF1 rearrangement, or EWSR1::YY1 fusion.

OBJECTIVE.—

To provide updates on the salient molecular features of diffuse mesothelioma, mesothelioma in situ, and other mesothelial lesions: well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor, adenomatoid tumor, peritoneal inclusion cyst, and others. We consider the diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive utility of molecular testing in mesothelial lesions.

DATA SOURCES.—

We performed a literature review of recently described genetic features, molecular approaches, and immunohistochemical tools, including BAP1, MTAP, and merlin in mesothelioma and other mesothelial lesions.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Our evolving understanding of the molecular diversity of diffuse mesothelioma and other mesothelial lesions has led to considerable changes in pathology diagnostic practice, including the application of immunohistochemical markers such as BAP1, MTAP, and merlin (NF2), which are surrogates of mutation status. In young patients and/or those without significant asbestos exposure, unusual mesothelioma genetics such as germline mutations, ALK rearrangement, and ATF1 rearrangement should be considered.

Testicular/paratesticular mesothelial tumours: Uncommon histopathologic entities in a very complex anatomical site

Mesothelial tumours of the testicular/paratesticular region are uncommon, poorly characterised and difficult-to-diagnose lesions. They encompass entirely benign proliferations (adenomatoid tumour) and malignant, very aggressive tumours (mesothelioma) whose morphological features can be overlapping, highly variable and confounding. Moreover, testicular/paratesticular mesothelial tumours comprise relatively new entities with indolent behaviour (well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour) as well as tumours which cannot be correctly included in any of the aforementioned categories and whose classification is still controversial. The molecular profile of such tumours represents an open issue. In fact, despite the recent discoveries about the genomic landscape of mesothelial proliferations at other sites (pleura, peritoneum), testicular/paratesticular mesothelial tumours, and namely mesotheliomas, are too rare to be extensively studied on large case series and they could arguably hide relevant differences in their molecular background when compared to the more common pleural/peritoneal counterparts.The aim of this review is to provide a guide for the pathological assessment of testicular/paratesticular mesothelial tumours. Herein, we describe the most recent updates on this topic according to the latest (year 2022) World Health Organisation Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumours (5th edition) and current literature. The diagnostic criteria, the main differentials and the role of ancillary techniques in the diagnosis of mesothelial testicular/paratesticular tumours are discussed.

New developments in mesothelial pathology

This review article examines some new and some problem areas in mesothelial pathology, four of which are discussed, as follows. (1) The concept of mesothelioma in situ: this lesion is defined as a single layer of bland mesothelial cells without evidence of invasion, but that have lost BAP1 and/or MTAP by immunohistochemistry. Benign reactions can exactly mimic mesothelioma in situ, but a hint to the correct diagnosis is a story of recurrent pleural effusions/ascites of unknown aetiology without radiological or direct visual evidence of tumour. (2) The nature of well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour (WDPMT): WDPMT has a long history of arguments regarding its behaviour, and this uncertainty can now be seen to arise, in part, from the observation that some forms of mesothelioma in situ microscopically look exactly like WDPMT. Hence, it is recommended to always run at least a BAP1 stain on any lesion that looks like WDPMT. Both flat and WDPMT-like mesothelioma in situ are strongly associated with eventual development of invasive mesothelioma, but this process is relatively slow. (3) New immunostains for separating mesothelioma from other tumours: here, it is proposed that in most cases, and particularly when the differential is epithelioid mesothelioma versus non-small cell lung cancer, one can make this separation with extremely high sensitivity and specificity using just two stains: HEG1 and claudin-4. (4) Markers for separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations: this topic is briefly reviewed, with an indication of which markers are generally accepted and the best utilisation and possible limitations of each marker.

Peritoneal Mesothelioma-An Update

A remarkable amount of new information has been generated on peritoneal mesothelioma (PeM), ranging from nomenclature changes, including the removal of "malignant" when referring to this neoplasm and the use of the term "tumor" rather than "mesothelioma" to designate the neoplasm formerly known as "well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma", to the acknowledgment that PeMs can be associated with tumor predisposition syndromes or germline mutations. Although the disease is still more frequently seen in caucasian males, PeM is not uncommon in women. In addition, it can represent a diagnostic challenge when it has an uncommon presentation (ie, paraneoplastic syndrome or incidental finding) or when it has confounding histologic features. Ancillary testing, including immunohistochemical stains, in situ hybridization for CDKN2A or NF2 , and molecular studies, in selected cases, allows its correct diagnosis. The molecular landscape of PeM is still a work in progress; however, some findings, such as ALK gene rearrangements and EWSR1/FUS-ATF1 fusions, are specifically seen in PeM of young patients. The biological behavior of PeM is variable; however, cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy have markedly improved the survival of patients affected by this disease.

Hypothesis: HEG1 and claudin-4 staining will allow a diagnosis of epithelioid and biphasic mesothelioma versus non-small-cell lung carcinoma with only two stains in most cases

Separation of mesothelioma from metastatic carcinoma requires immunohistochemical support, with small batteries of stains recommended as a starting-point, but these numbers commonly expand to 10, 12 or more stains, a process that is not only expensive but frequently generates anomalous or confounding results, leading to even more stains. Here we review data on HEG1 clone SKM9-2, a new (now commercially available) mesothelioma marker and claudin-4, a broad-spectrum carcinoma marker, to ask whether these two stains are sufficient, by themselves, to separate mesotheliomas from non-small-cell lung (NSCLC) as well as other carcinomas. Data for HEG1, derived from four laboratories, showed membrane staining in 393 of 434 (91%) epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas and one of 360 (0.3%) NSCLC (sensitivity 91%, specificity 99.7%). Reports from seven laboratories evaluating claudin-4 in NSCLC showed positivity in 469 of 502 (93%) carcinomas and weak positivity in five of 463 (1.0%) epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas (sensitivity 93%, specificity 98.9%). Comparable results were found with carcinomas from other sites, except for serous and thyroid carcinomas, some of which react with HEG1 but are also positive for claudin-4. For sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, HEG1 sensitivity is modest and staining sometimes difficult to interpret. We hypothesise that the combination of HEG1 and claudin-4 immunostaining will potentially allow the separation of epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas from NSCLC carcinomas with high accuracy using only two immunostains in most cases. This combination will probably also work for carcinomas from most other sites, but more reports on HEG1 SKM9-2 staining of carcinomas other than NSCLC are needed. This approach would greatly simplify the diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Well differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor: a new name and new problems

Well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor (WDPMT, formerly called well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma) is a morphologically distinctive lesion composed of expansile papillae with a myxoid core covered by a single layer of generally bland mesothelial cells. Whether some WDPMT are precursors of invasive mesothelioma is uncertain, and this question is confounded by shallow biopsies of ordinary diffuse mesotheliomas that have superficial areas resembling WDPMT as well as by misinterpretation of some cases of mesothelioma in situ. Genetic analyses on a very small number of published cases of peritoneal WDPMT have shown a variety of mutations/copy number losses that do not overlap at all with those that are found recurrently in invasive mesotheliomas. The newly described entity of mesothelioma in situ usually appears as a single layer of mesothelial cells that have lost BAP1 by immunostaining, but sometimes is papillary and produces a morphologic mimic of WDPMT. We propose that, at least in the peritoneal cavity where most WDPMT occur, there are two morphologically identical but functionally distinct lesions: one is true WDPMT, a process that is probably benign, and the other is papillary mesothelioma in situ with the configuration of WDPMT. For that reason immunostaining for BAP1, and if necessary MTAP or CDKN2A FISH, should always be performed on cases with the appearance of WDPMT. It is possible, but speculative, that the small number of reports in the literature which describe invasive mesothelioma arising from WDMPT are actually describing invasive mesothelioma arising from mesothelioma in situ that looks like WDPMT.

Adenomatoid mesothelioma arising from the diaphragm: a case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Adenomatoid mesothelioma is a rare subtype of malignant mesothelioma that can be confused with adenomatoid tumors, which are classified as benign. The clinical features and optimal management of adenomatoid mesothelioma have not been elucidated in the literature. In this report, we present an extremely rare case of adenomatoid mesothelioma that developed on the peritoneal surface of the diaphragm as well as a literature review of adenomatoid mesothelioma in the abdominal cavity.

CASE PRESENTATION

The patient was a 61-year-old Japanese woman who had undergone resection of a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the hand 18 years prior. She was diagnosed with clinical stage I lung adenocarcinoma on follow-up chest radiography. Simultaneously, a 20-mm enhancing nodule with slow growth on the right diaphragm was detected on contrast-enhanced computed tomography. She presented no specific clinical symptoms. At this point, the lesion was suspected to be a hypervascular tumor of borderline malignancy, such as a solitary fibrous tumor. After a left upper lobectomy for lung adenocarcinoma, she was referred to our department, and laparoscopic tumor resection was performed. Adenomatoid tumors were also considered based on the histopathological and immunohistochemical analyses, but we made the final diagnosis of adenomatoid mesothelioma using the results of the genetic profile. The patient remains alive, with no recurrence noted 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

We encountered a valuable case of adenomatoid mesothelioma of peritoneal origin. There are some previously reported cases of adenomatoid mesothelioma and adenomatoid tumors that may need to be recategorized according to the current classification. It is important to accumulate and share new findings to clarify the clinicopathological characteristics and genetic status of adenomatoid mesothelioma.

Solid papillary mesothelial tumor

We report nine examples of a previously undescribed type of peritoneal circumscribed nodular mesothelial tumor characterized by nests or sheets of mesothelial cells with sharp cell borders and extremely bland, sometimes grooved, nuclei. In some cases, nests were separated by fibrous bands. All patients were women, age range 30-72 years (median 52 years). All tumors were incidental findings during surgery and grossly were either solitary nodules or a few small nodules on the peritoneal surface. Referring pathologic diagnoses included diffuse malignant mesothelioma, localized malignant mesothelioma, well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma, and adenomatoid tumor. No tumor showed BAP1 loss by immunohistochemistry nor deletion of CDKN2A by FISH. RNA-seq revealed that these tumors clustered together and were distinct from peritoneal diffuse malignant mesotheliomas. Very few mutations or translocations were found, none of them recurrent from tumor to tumor, and no tumor showed an abnormality in any of the genes typically mutated/deleted in diffuse malignant mesothelioma. Array CGH on three cases revealed two with a completely flat profile and one with a small deletion at 3q26-3q28. On follow-up (range 5-60, median 34 months), there were no deaths, no recurrences, and no evidence of metastatic disease nor local spread; one case that initially had scattered nodules on the pelvic peritoneum had the same pattern of nodules at a second look operation 2 years later. We propose the name solid papillary mesothelial tumor for these lesions. These appear to be either benign or very low-grade tumors that need to be separated from malignant mesotheliomas.

Adenomatoid tumours of the gastrointestinal tract - a case-series and review of the literature

AIMS

Adenomatoid tumours are mesothelial-derived benign neoplasms with a predilection for the genital tract. Extragenital sites are rare and can cause significant diagnostic challenges. Herein, we describe the clinicopathological features of a cohort of adenomatoid tumours involving the gastrointestinal tract and liver in order to more clearly characterise their histological findings and aid in diagnosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The pathology databases at four institutions were searched for adenomatoid tumours involving the gastrointestinal tract or liver, yielding eight cases. Available clinicoradiological and follow-up data were collected from the medical records. Six tumours were incidentally discovered during imaging studies or at the time of surgical exploration for unrelated conditions; presenting symptoms were unknown in two patients. Histologically, the tumours were well-circumscribed, although focal ill-defined borders were present in four cases. No infiltration of adjacent structures was identified. Architectural heterogeneity was noted in five (63%) tumours; an adenoid pattern often predominated. The neoplastic cells were flattened to cuboidal with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Cytoplasmic vacuoles mimicking signet ring-like cells were present in five (63%) cases. Three (38%) cases showed involvement of the mesothelium with reactive mesothelial hyperplasia. Cytological atypia or increased mitotic activity was not identified. The surrounding stroma ranged from oedematous/myxoid to densely hyalinised. Immunohistochemistry confirmed mesothelial origin in all cases evaluated. No patients developed recurrence of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study evaluates the clinicopathological findings in a collective series of gastrointestinal and hepatic adenomatoid tumours, correlating with those described in individually reported cases. We highlight common histological features and emphasise variable findings that could mimic a malignant neoplasm.