The value of immunohistochemistry of pleural biopsy specimens in the differential diagnosis between malignant mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma

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.

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.

Morphological and immunohistochemical characterization of isolated tumor cells by p53 status in gastrointestinal tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in cancer patients are retrieved mostly using immunohistochemistry with antibodies directed against antiepithelial antigens (for example Ber-EP4), which are supposed not to be present in metastatic-free tissue. To date, there has been ongoing controversy whether those cells have biologic significance and are linked with tumor progression and impaired patient's prognosis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to further characterize Ber-EP4-positive cells in various tissues, with special emphasis on their tumorigenic origin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The frequency and prognostic impact of ITCs in lymph nodes displayed by means of monoclonal antibody Ber-EP4 were evaluated in retrospective (n = 292) and prospective (n = 100) collectives of various gastrointestinal carcinomas free of metastatic disease in conventional histopathology (pN0). Furthermore, the frequency of ITCs in the peritoneal cavity and bone marrow was analyzed in case of absence of overt distant metastasis (pM0) in the prospective collective. Ber-EP4-immunoreactive cells were further characterized for tumorigenic origin using morphological criteria and immunohistochemical double staining for Ber-EP4 and p53.

RESULTS

Ber-EP4-positive cells could be revealed in lymph nodes in 44.3% of pN0-gastrointestinal carcinomas, in the peritoneal cavity in 19%, and in the bone marrow in 10%. In lymph nodes, BerEP4-immunoreactive cells exhibited a metastatic-atypical morphology in 59%; however, it was always typical for true tumor cells in the peritoneal cavity or bone marrow. The cumulative 5-year survival rate was adversely affected by Ber-EP4-immunoreactive cells in uni- and multivariate analysis, irrespective of the underlying cell morphology (68% for Ber-EP4 negative, 41% for Ber-EP4 positive with atypical and typical morphology each). In the case of a p53-positive primary tumor, 70% of the corresponding ITCs also overexpressed p53, while the remainder was deemed p53 negative (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

ITCs detected by the antiepithelial antibody Ber-EP4 are present in a substantial proportion of apparently tumor-free lymph nodes. These cells impair patients' prognoses, irrespective of the underlying cell morphology. As approximately one third of Ber-EP4-positive cells in p53-positive primary tumors do not overexpress p53; their true tumorigenic origin needs to be further investigated.

Usefulness of ploidy, AgNOR and immunocytochemistry for differentiating benign and malignant cells in serous effusions

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to establish the value of different markers in differentiating reactive mesothelial cells from metastatic adenocarcinomatous cells in serous effusions (SE).

METHODS

Forty-five SE were processed for morphological examination (Papanicolaou stain), assessment of ploidy, AgNOR counting and immunocytochemical assay of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial membrane antigens (EMA), Ber-EP4 and Leu-M1. Ploidy was established in an image-analyser in smears stained by the Feulgen stain method. AgNOR dots were counted in the smears stained with the silver nitrate assay for non-histone proteins present in the nucleolar organizer region. CEA, EMA, Ber-EP4 and Leu-M1 were evaluated by immunocytochemistry using the streptavidin-biotin complex method.

RESULTS

All the smears with positive cytology were aneuploid. Three false negatives by morphological studies were aneuploid, with AgNOR values in two of them corresponding to the neoplastic group. CEA and Leu-M1 showed a low specificity; EMA and Ber-EP4 showed moderate sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of ploidy and the study of AgNOR were better methods than immunocytochemistry for distinguishing between reactive mesothelial cells and adenocarcinomatous cells in serous fluid.

Applications and limitations of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is an uncommon malignant epithelial neoplasm originating from the serosal surface of body cavities. Because serosal surfaces are a common site of metastatic spread for a variety of malignant neoplasms originating from internal organs, separating malignant mesothelioma from metastatic tumors is of clinical importance. The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma is complex and usually requires a multimodal approach that includes careful clinical history and physical examination, imaging studies, and tissue sampling for multimodal evaluation including routine histology, histochemistry, electron microscopy, and immunohistochemical tests. Of these, immunohistochemistry has emerged as the most valuable and readily available modality for the routine evaluation of these tumors. Unfortunately, no specific antibodies have yet been developed that can be accepted as exclusive for these tumors. The immunohistochemical diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma therefore depends on the use of a panel of stains that includes markers that are commonly expected to react with these tumors ("positive" markers) and markers that are not commonly expected to react with these tumors ("negative" markers). Additionally, the selection and utility of these various markers can vary considerably based on a constellation of circumstances, including patient sex, histologic appearance of the tumor (ie, epithelioid vs. sarcomatoid, etc), and various other clinical circumstances. Herein, we will review the currently available immunohistochemical markers used for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma and offer suggestions for the use of appropriate panels of stains based on specific morphologic types and clinical circumstances.

Sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemical markers used in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma: a detailed systematic analysis using published data

AIMS

Immunohistochemistry is frequently employed to aid the distinction between mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura, but there is uncertainty as to which antibodies are most useful. We analysed published data in order to establish sensitivity and specificity of antibodies used to distinguish between these tumours with a view to defining the most appropriate immunohistochemical panel to use when faced with this diagnostic problem.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic analysis of the results of 88 published papers comparing immunohistochemical staining of a panel of antibodies in mesothelioma with epithelioid areas, and pulmonary adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura. Results for a total of 15 antibodies were analysed and expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The most sensitive antibodies for identifying pulmonary adenocarcinoma were MOC-31 and BG8 (both 93%), whilst the most specific were monoclonal CEA (97%) and TTF-1 (100%). The most sensitive antibodies to identify epithelioid mesothelioma were CK5/6 (83%) and HBME-1 (85%). The most specific antibodies were CK5/6 (85%) and WT1 (96%).

CONCLUSIONS

No single antibody is able to differentiate reliably between these two tumours. The use of a small panel of antibodies with a high combined sensitivity and specificity is recommended.

Advances in the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is an insidious neoplasm arising from the mesothelial surfaces of the pleural and peritoneal cavities, the pericardium, or the tunica vaginalis. A total of 80% of all cases are pleural in origin. The predominant cause of malignant mesothelioma is inhalational exposure to asbestos, although evidence is increasing to support the hypothesis that simian virus-40 virus plays a role in cocarcinogenesis. Immunohistochemical markers such as calretinin, WT-1, and cytokeratin 5/6 are becoming established diagnostic markers. Preliminary data suggests that a soluble form of mesothelin could serve as a serum marker for established and early cases of mesothelioma. Positron emission tomography with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in conjunction with computed tomograhy scanning has improved preoperative imaging and staging. Prognostic factors have been identified and verified. Negative indicators include thrombocytosis, high leukocyte counts, poor performance status, and nonepithelial histology. For the first time, there is now evidence that some treatments are increasing the quality and quantity of life for patients with mesothelioma. Chemotherapy, with the new multi-targeted antifolate drug Pemetrexed, combined with cisplatin, has shown superior survival rates in a large phase III trial when compared to cisplatin alone. High-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy when administered after extrapleural pneumonectomy has resulted in excellent local control. Multimodality treatment programs that combine surgical cytoreduction with novel forms of radiation therapy and more effective chemotherapy combinations may offer significant increases in survival for certain subgroups of mesothelioma patients. Innovative palliative approaches have proved successful in alleviation of the significant symptoms experienced by many mesothelioma patients. Experimental treatments such as immunotherapy and gene therapy present a window of hope for all mesothelioma patients, and in the future, may be combined with 'standard therapy' in multimodality protocols. Patients with adequate performance status should be enrolled into clinical trials where possible. Over the past decade, significant advances have been made on several fronts that have improved the ability to diagnose a stage, define prognosis, and treat malignant pleural mesothelioma.

The immunohistochemical diagnosis of mesothelioma: a comparative study of epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma

A large number of immunohistochemical markers that can facilitate the distinction between epithelioid pleural mesotheliomas and pulmonary peripheral adenocarcinomas have recently become available. The aim of this study is to compare the value of these new markers with others that are already commonly used for this purpose and to determine which are, at present, the best for discriminating between these malignancies. Sixty epithelioid mesotheliomas and 50 lung adenocarcinomas were investigated for expression of the following markers: calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, WT1, thrombomodulin, mesothelin, CD44S, HBME-1, N-cadherin, E-cadherin, MOC-31, thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1), BG-8 (Lewisy), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Ber-EP4, B72.3 (TAG-72), leu-M1 (CD15), CA19-9, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), and vimentin. All (100%) of the mesotheliomas reacted for calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, and mesothelin, 93% for WT1, 93% for EMA, 85% for HBME-1, 77% for thrombomodulin; 73% for CD44S, 73% for N-cadherin, 55% for vimentin, 40% for E-cadherin, 18% for Ber-EP4, 8% for MOC-31, 7% for BG-8, and none for CEA, B72.3, leu-M1, TTF-1, or CA19-9. Of the adenocarcinomas, 100% were positive for MOC-31, Ber-EP4, and EMA, 96% for BG-8, 88% for CEA, 88% for E-cadherin, 84% for B72.3, 74% for TTF-1, 72% for leu-M1, 68% for HBME-1, 48% for CD44S, 48% for CA19-9, 38% for mesothelin, 38% for vimentin, 30% for N-cadherin, 14% for thrombomodulin, 8% for calretinin, 2% for cytokeratin 5/6, and none for WT1. After analyzing the results, it is concluded that calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, and WT1 are the best positive markers for differentiating epithelioid malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The best discriminators among the antibodies considered to be negative markers for mesothelioma are CEA, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, BG-8, and B72.3. A panel of four markers (two positive and two negative) selected based upon availability and which ones yield good staining results in a given laboratory is recommended. Because of their specificity and sensitivity for mesotheliomas, the best combination appears to be calretinin and cytokeratin 5/6 (or WT1) for the positive markers and CEA and MOC-31 (or B72.3, Ber-EP4, or BG-8) for the negative markers. An extensive and detailed review of the literature is also provided.

Immunohistochemistry in the distinction between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma: a critical evaluation of new antibodies

AIM

The value of immunohistochemical staining in differentiating between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma was re-examined using newly available commercial antibodies, with the aim of increasing the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis, and simplifying the antibody panel required.

METHODS

Forty one malignant mesotheliomas and 35 lung adenocarcinomas were studied. Commercial antibodies to calretinin, E-cadherin, N-cadherin, surfactant apoprotein A (SP-A), thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1), thrombomodulin, and cytokeratin 5/6 were applied using the streptavidin-biotin-peroxidase complex procedure on formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded tissue.

RESULTS

E-cadherin was expressed in all adenocarcinomas and in 22% of the mesotheliomas. TTF-1 expression was detected in 69% of the adenocarcinomas and none of the mesotheliomas. Positive staining with polyclonal anticalretinin was detected in 80% of the mesotheliomas and 6% of the adenocarcinomas. N-cadherin was expressed in 78% of mesotheliomas and 26% of adenocarcinomas. Thrombomodulin was expressed in 6% of the adenocarcinomas and in 53% of the mesotheliomas. Cytokeratin 5/6 expression was detected in 6% of the adenocarcinomas and 63% of the mesotheliomas. The results were compared with the standard laboratory panel for mesothelioma diagnosis: anticarcinoembryonic antigen (anti-CEA), LeuM1, BerEP4, and HBME-1.

CONCLUSION

Of the antibodies used in this study, E-cadherin was 100% sensitive for pulmonary adenocarcinoma and TTF-1 was 100% specific for pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The application of these two antibodies alone was adequate for the diagnosis of 69% of adenocarcinomas and 78% of mesotheliomas. Where TTF-1 is negative and E-cadherin is positive, a secondary panel of antibodies, including BerEP4 and LeuM1 (CD15) and antibodies directed against CEA, calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, and N-cadherin, is required for differentiation between malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

Ber-EP4 immunoreactivity depends on the germ layer origin and maturity of the squamous epithelium

AIM

To map the expression of Ber-EP4 in well-differentiated squamous epithelia, metaplastic squamous epithelia and dysplastic squamous epithelia of different origins.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Squamous epithelium of different origin was stained using a standard immunohistochemistry method applied to paraffin sections. We found that normal squamous epithelium of the oral cavity, oesophagus, uterine cervix, vagina, anal canal, and branchial cysts are Ber-Ep4-negative, as are the mature squamous metaplasia of bronchial mucosa, urinary bladder mucosa and uterine cervical mucosa. In contrast, immature squamous metaplasia of bronchial mucosa, or uterine cervical mucosa, and squamous dysplasia of oral mucosa of endodermal origin, or uterine cervical mucosa in most cases expressed Ber-EP4.

CONCLUSION

Squamous epithelia of ectodermal origin never express Ber-EP4, whether normal, hyperplastic, dysplastic or neoplastic. In contrast, squamous epithelium of endodermal origin sometimes contains the target glycoproteins of Ber-EP4 when immature, metaplastic, dysplastic or neoplastic. The results indicate that the differences in expression of Ber-EP4 in squamous epithelium depend primarily on germ layer origin, and on the maturity of the epithelium.

The value of anti-calretinin antibody in the differential diagnosis of normal and reactive mesothelia versus metastatic tumors in effusion cytology

In effusion cytology the distinction of reactive mesothelia from metastatic carcinoma cells may be a diagnostic challenge. Immunocytochemistry using antibodies suitable to detect epithelial cells must be considered carefully due to limited sensitivity and specificity of these antibodies. Efficient results in histological differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma versus lung-adenocarcinoma applying a novel antiserum against the calcium binding protein calretinin inspirated us to investigate the value of anti-calretinin antibody in effusion cytology combined with an epithelial marker. Cytoslides prepared by cytocentrifugation from 42 malignant and 65 reactive effusion specimens were immunostained using antibodies against calretinin and the epithelial marker Ber-EP4. Positive immunoreaction for calretinin in normal and reactive mesothelial cells was noted in 93% of the cases, whereas immunoreaction for calretinin was completely negative in the metastatic cells in 95% of the malignant effusions. Metastatic carcinoma cells were detected with anti-Ber-EP4 in 83% of malignant effusions. Non-specific positive reactions for Ber-EP4 in single mesothelial cells were observed in 16% of all cases and, moreover, frequently with macrophages or neutrophilic granulocytes. Our results demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity of anti-calretinin antibody for mesothelial cells in effusion specimens. They support its application to improve the diagnostic reliability of epithelial markers, especially because anti-calretinin antibody could be helpful in the assessment of false positive and false negative reactions of epithelial markers.

Role of immunohistochemistry in distinguishing epithelial peritoneal mesotheliomas from peritoneal and ovarian serous carcinomas

The histologic distinction between epithelial peritoneal mesothelioma and papillary serous carcinoma diffusely involving the peritoneum may be difficult. Although some investigators have indicated that immunohistochemistry can facilitate this differential diagnosis. only a few studies using a limited number of markers have been published. In this study, the immunoreactivity of keratin 5/6, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, thrombomodulin, calretinin, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen, TAG-72 (B72.3), CD15 (Leu-M1), placental alkaline phosphatase, CA19-9, CA-125, HBME-1, 44-3A6, and S-100 protein was investigated in 35 epithelial peritoneal mesotheliomas, and 45 papillary serous carcinomas [30 ovarian (10 primary and 20 metastatic to the peritoneum) and 15 papillary serous carcinomas of the peritoneum]. After analyzing the results, it is concluded that calretinin, thrombomodulin, and keratin 5/6 are the best positive markers for differentiating epithelial malignant mesotheliomas from papillary serous carcinomas diffusely involving the peritoneum. The best diagnostic discriminators among the antibodies considered to be negative markers for mesothelioma are MOC-31, B72.3, Ber-EP4, CA19-9, and Leu-M1. Immunostaining for carcinoembryonic antigen, placental alkaline phosphatase, epithelial membrane antigen, vimentin, HBME-1, 44-3A6, CA-125, or S-100 have little or no diagnostic utility in establishing the differential diagnosis between these conditions. The results of this study also confirm previous observations indicating that both papillary serous carcinomas of the peritoneum and serous carcinomas of the ovary have a similar phenotype and, therefore, immunohistochemical studies are not useful in separating these entities.

A comparative evaluation of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural tumours

AIMS

To determine the value of immunocytochemistry in differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma from carcinoma in a pleural biopsy using commercially available monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A panel of monoclonal antibodies against keratins, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), epithelial antigen Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tumour-associated glycoprotein (B72.3), Leu-M1, CD30 (Ber-H2), vimentin and desmin, was applied to 40 cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma and 23 cases of carcinoma metastatic to the pleura (16 pulmonary and seven extrapulmonary). Positivities for Ber-EP4, CEA, B72.3 and Leu-M1 were found to have the highest nosologic sensitivities (87.0%, 65.2%, 52.5% and 43.5%, respectively) and specificities (97.5%, 97.5%, 100% and 95%, respectively) for carcinoma. Positive staining for vimentin had the highest sensitivity (87.5%) with 95.7% specificity for mesothelioma. Positive staining for desmin was found in 45% of mesotheliomas and 0% of carcinomas. Diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity (P-values) were calculated for these markers. In respect to the diagnostic power defined by the clinically relevant predictive values of positive and negative tests, we found that a two-marker panel of antibodies including vimentin and Ber-EP4 is most useful for the histopathological distinction between carcinoma (pulmonary or extrapulmonary) and malignant pleural mesothelioma.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of Ber-EP4 and vimentin provides the most sensitive and specific pair of markers for distinguishing between malignant pleural mesothelioma and carcinoma metastatic to the pleura. The prevalence of the tested tumours should be taken into account when evaluating the clinical value of ancillary techniques in pathology.

E-cadherin and calretinin: a useful combination of immunochemical markers for differentiation between mesothelioma and metastatic adenocarcinoma

AIMS

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of antibodies in the differential diagnosis of metastatic carcinomas and mesotheliomas in pleural lesions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The specificity and sensitivity of the commercially available antibodies Ber-EP4, MOC-31, CEA, B72.3, CD15, E-cadherin and calretinin were evaluated using an indirect immunoperoxidase staining technique. This technique was applied to formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks of pleural lesions. Twenty-one patients with metastatic carcinoma (MC) and 20 patients with malignant mesothelioma (MM) were included. The combination E-cadherin/calretinin had the highest specificity (MC 100% and MM 91%) and sensitivity (MM 100% and MC 91%) considering both categories of tumours.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of E-cadherin/calretinin appears to be a suitable panel for distinguishing metastatic carcinomas and mesotheliomas in pleural lesions. The additional value of other markers is limited.