Is D2-40 a useful marker for distinguishing malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma and benign mesothelial proliferations?

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.

Differential Diagnosis of Epithelioid Malignant Mesothelioma With Lung and Breast Pleural Metastasis: A Systematic Review Compared With a Standardized Panel of Antibodies-A New Proposal That May Influence Pathologic Practice

CONTEXT.—

Pleural mesothelioma is a rare cancer with an often-challenging diagnosis because of its potential to be a great mimicker of many other tumors. Among them, primary lung and breast cancers are the 2 main causes of pleural metastasis. The development and application of targeted therapeutic agents have made it even more important to achieve an accurate diagnosis. In this setting, international guidelines have recommended the use of 2 positive and 2 negative immunohistochemical biomarkers.

OBJECTIVES.—

To define the most highly specific and sensitive minimum set of antibodies for routine practice to use for the separation of epithelioid malignant mesothelioma from lung and breast metastasis and to determine the most relevant expression cutoff.

DESIGN.—

To provide information at different levels of expression of 16 mesothelial and epithelial biomarkers, we performed a systematic review of articles published between 1979 and 2017, and we compared those data to results from the Mesothelioma Telepathology Network (MESOPATH) of the standardized panel used in routine practice database since 1998.

RESULTS.—

Our results indicate that the following panel of markers-calretinin (poly)/thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1; clone 8G7G3/1) and calretinin (poly)/estrogen receptor-α (ER-α; clone EP1)-should be recommended; ultimately, based on the MESOPATH database, we highlight their relevance which are the most sensitive and specific panel useful to the differential diagnosis at 10% cutoff.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Highlighted by their relevance in the large cohort reported, we recommend 2 useful panels to the differential diagnosis at 10% cutoff.

Calretinin-expressing lung adenocarcinoma: Distinct characteristics of advanced stages, smoker-type features, and rare expression of other mesothelial markers are useful to differentiate epithelioid mesothelioma

Calretinin, a mesothelioma marker, is sometimes expressed in lung cancer, which may complicate the differential diagnosis of mesothelioma. Here, the clinicopathological and immunohistochemical characteristics of calretinin-positive lung cancer were examined to reduce confusion with malignant mesothelioma. Calretinin expression in 307 consecutive cases of lung cancer was evaluated immunohistochemically. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Calretinin expression was identified in 67 (22%) tumors, including those with partial and weak expression [15% (37/250) of adenocarcinomas, 54% (25/46) of squamous cell carcinomas, 75% (3/4) of adenosquamous carcinomas, and 29% (2/7) of sarcomatoid carcinomas]. In calretinin-positive adenocarcinoma (n = 37), expression percentages of Wilms tumor-1, podoplanin, thyroid transcription factor-1, and claudin-4 were 6, 3, 52, 82%, respectively, whereas in calretinin-positive squamous cell carcinoma (n = 25) the percentages were 8, 12, 12, 68%, respectively, indicating that other mesothelial markers were only rarely expressed and that claudin-4 expression was common. Although not an independent marker, calretinin expression was associated with a poor prognosis for stage I tumors of adenocarcinoma (p < 0.001) and of all histological subtypes (p < 0.001). In conclusion, calretinin-positive lung tumors share characteristics with those of smokers and advanced stages and can be differentiated from mesothelioma with the use of other mesothelial and epithelial markers.

Diagnostic value of D2-40 immunostaining for malignant mesothelioma: a meta-analysis

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) has become a global disease burden for its rising incidence and invariable fatality. D2-40 has been widely used as an immunostaining marker of diagnosing MM, while its diagnostic value has not yet been evaluated. Our study aimed to assess the overall accuracy of D2-40 immunostaining for diagnosing MM through a meta-analysis. A total of 22 studies with 2,264 participants were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane database. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of D2-40 for MM was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84–0.89) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74–0.79), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.93, with a diagnostic odds ratio 40.37 (95% CI: 19.97–81.61). None of the study variates was found to be a source of heterogeneity after meta-regression analysis. In conclusion, D2-40 immunostaining may not give sufficient evidence by itself to diagnose MM and should be in combination with other markers to improve the accuracy of diagnosis.

The Role of CD90 in the Differential Diagnosis of Pleural Malignant Mesothelioma, Pulmonary Carcinoma and Comparison with Calretının

Pleural Malignant Mesothelioma (MM) is a fatal disease that has been associated with asbestos exposure. Differential diagnosis between the pleural infiltration of pulmonary carcinomas and MM is rather difficult particularly for epitheloid type mesothelioma.We aimed to investigate the utility of CD90, a cancer stem cell marker, in the differential diagnosis of MM and lung carcinoma, its prognostic significance and compare its value with that of Calretinin. Ninety pathology specimens including MM (n:30), pulmonary adenocarcinoma (n:30) and pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma (n:30) were used in this study. Immunohistochemical comparision of CD 90 and Calretinin was made in all groups. Calretinin was positive in 20 cases with MM (64.5 %), and was negative in 10 (32.3 %). CD 90 was positive in 25 of these cases (80 %) and negative in 5 (16 %). On the other hand pulmonary adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas showed positivity with CD90, 63,6 % and 73 %, respectively. We think that CD 90 has no place in the differential diagnosis between mesothelioma and pulmonary carcinoma because of the low specificity in spite of the high sensitivity.

Value of D2-40 in the differential diagnosis of pleural neoplasms with emphasis on its positivity in solitary fibrous tumor

D2-40 is a new monoclonal antibody recognizing podoplanin and it is selective for lymphatic endothelium. Several studies have confirmed the reliability of D2-40 in the diagnosis of pleural malignant mesothelioma, but the evaluation of this antibody in other pleural neoplasms is limited. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of D2-40 in segregation of malignant mesothelioma from other pleural or lung neoplasms. Sixty-seven cases, including 36 pleural malignant mesotheliomas, 15 solitary fibrous tumors, 13 pleomorphic carcinomas, and 3 synovial sarcomas, were immunohistochemically studied using a D2-40 monoclonal antibody. Twenty-five (21 epithelioid and 4 biphasic) of 36 (69%) malignant mesotheliomas and 2 of 15 (13%) solitary fibrous tumors were positive for D2-40. The difference of D2-40 positivity between these 2 types of tumor was significant (P<0.001). No D2-40 positivity was detected in pleomorphic carcinomas (n=13) or synovial sarcomas (n=3). These findings showed that D2-40 was frequently positive in malignant mesothelioma, but could also be positive in a small portion of solitary fibrous tumor. These results indicate that D2-40 is a valuable marker for malignant mesothelioma, but caution should be taken when evaluating D2-40-positive pleural spindle cell neoplasms in limited small biopsy specimens, especially when the differential diagnosis includes solitary fibrous tumor and malignant mesothelioma.