How useful is GLUT-1 in differentiating mesothelial hyperplasia and fibrosing pleuritis from epithelioid and sarcomatoid mesotheliomas? An international collaborative study

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.

Cytological Assessment of Desmoplastic Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in an Autopsy Case

INTRODUCTION

Desmoplastic malignant pleural mesothelioma (DMPM) is a sarcoma-type mesothelioma, comprising approximately 5% of malignant pleural mesotheliomas. Although effusion cytology is commonly used as the primary diagnostic approach for mesothelioma, it may not be useful for DMPM because of the presence of desmoplasia and bland cellular atypia. We report a case, and previously undescribed cytological features, of DMPM that was diagnosed during autopsy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A man in his 60s with a history of occupational asbestos exposure was referred to our hospital with right chest pain. A chest CT scan showed right pleural effusion. Thirteen months later, the patient died of respiratory failure. During autopsy, scrape-imprint smears were prepared and cytology of pleural effusions was performed. The scrape-imprint smear samples showed spindle cells with mild nuclear atypia and grooves with fibrous stroma. Pleural effusion cytology revealed spindle cells with mild nuclear atypia, as well as grooves with loose epithelial connections. Histological examination of the right pleura showed spindle cells proliferating with dense collagen fibers, as seen in the cytological samples, thus indicating a diagnosis of DMPM, which was confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization.

CONCLUSION

Cytological procedures such as pleural effusion cytology and scrape-imprinting cytology may help in diagnosing rare tumors such as DMPM.

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

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

Highly expressed EZH2 in combination with BAP1 and MTAP loss, as detected by immunohistochemistry, is useful for differentiating malignant pleural mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive neoplasm with poor prognosis. Loss of BRCA-associated protein 1 (BAP1) protein expression as detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and homozygous deletion (HD) of the 9p21 locus as detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) permits differentiation of MPM from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH). We have previously reported that detecting the loss of methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) using IHC is a surrogate assay for 9p21 FISH. Furthermore, enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2), which encodes a component of polycomb repressor complex 2 (PRC-2), has been overexpressed in various tumors as well as MPM. In the current study, we investigated whether EZH2 IHC assay, alone or in combination with BAP1 and MTAP IHC, is useful for distinguishing MPM from RMH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined IHC expression of EZH2, BAP1, and MTAP, and 9p21 FISH in MPM (n = 38) and RMH (n = 29) and analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of each detection assay for distinguishing MPM from RMH.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

EZH2, BAP1, and MTAP IHC, and 9p21 FISH were characterized by a 100% specificity each and 44.7%, 52.6%, 47.4%, and 65.8% sensitivities, respectively. A combination of EZH2 and BAP1 IHC, and 9p21 FISH showed the greatest sensitivity (89.5%). Using IHC alone (EZH2, BAP1, and MTAP IHC) also yielded a good sensitivity of 86.9%; this level is high enough for routine diagnostics. There were no statistically significant associations between expression of EZH2 and that of other markers (BAP1 and MTAP IHC) or 9p21 HD. However, a high expression level of EZH2 was significantly associated with short survival (P = 0.025). In conclusion, adding a high expression level of EZH2 to a combination of BAP1 and MTAP loss, all detected by IHC, demonstrated useful for discriminating MPM from RMH.

The pathological and molecular diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a literature review

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), an asbestos-induced tumor, represents significant diagnostic challenges for pathologists. Its histological diagnosis is stepwise and should be based on morphological assessment, supported by clinical and radiological findings, and supplemented with immunohistochemistry (IHC) and, more recently, molecular tests. The main diagnostic dilemmas are the differential diagnoses with benign mesothelial proliferations and other pleural malignant tumors. The present review is an update regarding the morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features with respect to MPM diagnosis. Data sources include a survey of the biomedical literature from PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and textbooks focusing on the pathological diagnosis of MPM and associated immunohistochemical and molecular markers. The histological findings of MPM could facilitate its diagnosis and provide important prognostic information. The immunohistochemical approach should rest on the application of a panel including positive (mesothelial-related) and negative markers with greater than 80% sensitivity and specificity, which need to be selected based on morphology and clinical information. Moreover, in challenging cases, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for the p16 deletion and IHC to evaluate the loss of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) expression could be useful in distinguishing benign from malignant pleural proliferations.

BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16 FISH results in combination provide higher confidence in malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis: ROC analysis of the two tests

Differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) from benign mesothelial proliferation remains problematic. Loss of nuclear staining of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1; detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC)) and homozygous deletion (HD) of p16 (detected using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)) are useful for differentiation of MPM from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH), but the correlation between BAP1 expression loss and p16 HD has not been fully described. We performed BAP1 IHC and p16-specific FISH for 40 MPM and 20 RMH cases, and measured proportions of cells showing BAP1 expression and p16 HD for each case. The diagnostic accuracy for MPM and the cut-off values of the two methods were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. BAP1 expression loss, p16 HD and coexistence of both were present in 27 (67.5 %), 27 (67.5 %) and 17 (42.5 %) MPM cases, respectively. Three MPM cases (7.5 %) and all 20 RMH cases had neither BAP1 loss nor p16 HD. There was no correlation between the results of the two methods. Their combination showed higher sensitivity (92.5 %, 37/40) and estimated probability than BAP1 IHC and p16-specific FISH used alone. BAP1 IHC and p16-specific FISH have independent diagnostic value, and have increased reliability when used in combination, for MPM diagnosis.

Guidelines for the Cytopathologic Diagnosis of Epithelioid and Mixed-Type Malignant Mesothelioma: a secondary publication

OBJECTIVE

To provide practical guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.

DATA SOURCES

Cytopathologists with an interest in the field involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) and the International Academy of Cytology (IAC) contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.

RATIONALE

This article is the result of discussions during and after the IMIG 2012 conference in Boston, followed by thorough discussions during the 2013 IAC meeting in Paris. Additional contributions have been obtained from cytopathologists and scientists who could not attend these meetings, with final discussions and input during the IMIG 2014 conference in Cape Town.

Guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma: Complementary Statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group, Also Endorsed by the International Academy of Cytology and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology

OBJECTIVE

To provide practical guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.

DATA SOURCES

Cytopathologists with an interest in the field involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) and the International Academy of Cytology (IAC) contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.

RATIONALE

This article is the result of discussions during and after the IMIG 2012 conference in Boston, followed by thorough discussions during the 2013 IAC meeting in Paris. Additional contributions have been obtained from cytopathologists and scientists who could not attend these meetings, with final discussions and input during the IMIG 2014 conference in Cape Town.

Guidelines for cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed type malignant mesothelioma. Complementary statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group, also endorsed by the International Academy of Cytology and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology

To provide practical guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM). Cytopathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) and the International Academy of Cytology (IAC), who have an interest in the field contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. This article is the result of discussions during and after the IMIG 2012 conference in Boston, followed by thorough discussions during the 2013 IAC meeting in Paris. Additional contributions have been obtained from cytopathologists and scientists, who could not attend these meetings, with final discussions and input during the IMIG 2014 conference in cape town. During the previous IMIG biennial meetings, thorough discussions have resulted in published guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. However, previous recommendations have stated that the diagnosis of MM should be based on histological material only.[12] Accumulating evidence now indicates that the cytological diagnosis of MM supported by ancillary techniques is as reliable as that based on histopathology, although the sensitivity with cytology may be somewhat lower.[345] Recognizing that noninvasive diagnostic modalities benefit both the patient and the health system, future recommendations should include cytology as an accepted method for the diagnosis of this malignancy.[67] The article describes the consensus of opinions of the authors on how cytology together with ancillary testing can be used to establish a reliable diagnosis of MM.

BAP1 (BRCA1-associated protein 1) is a highly specific marker for differentiating mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial proliferations

The distinction between malignant mesothelioma and reactive mesothelial proliferation can be challenging both on histology and cytology. Recently, variants of the BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) gene resulting in nuclear protein loss were reported in hereditary and sporadic mesothelioma. Using immunohistochemistry, we evaluated the utility of BAP1 expression in the differential diagnosis between mesothelioma and other mesothelial proliferations on a large series of biopsies that included 212 mesotheliomas, 12 benign mesothelial tumors, and 42 reactive mesothelial proliferations. BAP1 stain was also performed in 70 cytological samples (45 mesotheliomas and 25 reactive mesothelial proliferations). BAP1 was expressed in all benign mesothelial tumors, whereas 139/212 (66%) mesotheliomas were BAP1 negative, especially in epithelioid/biphasic compared with sarcomatoid/desmoplastic subtypes (69% vs 15%). BAP1 loss was homogeneous in neoplastic cells except for two epithelioid mesotheliomas showing tumor heterogeneity. By fluorescence in situ hybridization, BAP1 protein loss was paralleled by homozygous deletion of the BAP1 locus in the vast majority of BAP1-negative tumors (31/41, 76%), whereas 9/10 BAP1-positive mesotheliomas were normal. In biopsies interpreted as reactive mesothelial proliferation BAP1 loss was 100% predictive of malignancy, as all 6 cases subsequently developed BAP1-negative mesothelioma, whereas only 3/36 (8%) BAP1-positive cases progressed to mesothelioma. On cytology/cell blocks, benign mesothelial cells were invariably positive for BAP1, whereas 64% of mesotheliomas showed loss of protein; all 6 cases showing BAP1 negativity were associated with histological diagnosis of BAP1-negative mesothelioma. BAP1 stain also showed utility in the differential of mesothelioma from most common pleural and peritoneal mimickers, such as lung and ovary carcinomas, with specificity and sensitivity of 99/70% and 100/70%, respectively. Our results show that BAP1 protein is frequently lost in mesothelioma, especially of epithelioid/biphasic subtype and is commonly associated with homozygous BAP1 deletion. BAP1 immunostain represents an excellent biomarker with an unprecedented specificity (100%) in the distinction between benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations. Finding BAP1 loss in mesothelial cells should prompt to immediately reevaluate the patient; moreover, it might be useful in mapping tumor extent and planning surgical resection.

Guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma. Complementary statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group, also endorsed by the International Academy of Cytology and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology

OBJECTIVE

To provide practical guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.

DATA SOURCES

Cytopathologists with an interest in the field involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) and the International Academy of Cytology (IAC) contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.

RATIONALE

This article is the result of discussions during and after the IMIG 2012 conference in Boston, followed by thorough discussions during the 2013 IAC meeting in Paris. Additional contributions have been obtained from cytopathologists and scientists who could not attend these meetings, with final discussions and input during the IMIG 2014 conference in Cape Town.