Recent Advances in the Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma: Focus on Approach in Challenging Cases and in Limited Tissue and Cytologic Samples

Reliably making the primary diagnosis of mesothelioma utilizing serous fluid cytology specimens: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of mesothelioma has historically been challenging, especially on serous fluid cytology (SFC). Distinguishing between reactive and neoplastic mesothelial cells can be difficult on cytomorphology alone. However, additional ancillary tests, such as BRCA1 associated protein-1 immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization for cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A deletion, can provide a sensitive and highly specific method of proving malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SFC specimens diagnosed as mesothelioma, suspicious for mesothelioma (SM), and atypical mesothelial cells (AMCs) since 2012 were identified by querying the laboratory information system. Clinical data and pathologic parameters were gathered.

RESULTS

One hundred ten cases of mesothelioma, SM, and AMC were identified. Of these, 61 cases had a definitive diagnosis of mesothelioma on SFC. Average age at SFC diagnosis was 67 years (26-87 years), with most patients being male (67%). Out of the 61 cases, 11 cases (18%) had an initial diagnosis of mesothelioma made on SFC specimens, with 5 of these 11 cases being in patients that never received a histologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. Ancillary studies were utilized in all 11 cases. An initial diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma was made on SFC in 9 cases (15%). For 6 of these 9 cases, the SFC diagnosis was the sole diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma without a companion histologic diagnosis. In addition, 15 cases were diagnosed as SM, with 11 of these cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis. Thirty-four cases were diagnosed as AMC, with 27 cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of mesothelioma can be reliably made on SFC with the appropriate cytomorphology criteria and/or confirmatory ancillary testing.

Current Approach to Undifferentiated Neoplasms, With Focus on New Developments and Novel Immunohistochemical Stains

CONTEXT.—

Workup of the poorly differentiated or undifferentiated tumor remains a significant and challenging entity in the practice of anatomic pathology. Particularly in the setting of small biopsies and limited material, these cases demand a balanced approach that considers the patient's clinical and radiologic presentation, a basic assessment of tumor morphology, a reasonably broad immunohistochemical panel, and diligent preservation of tissue for prognostic and therapeutic studies.

OBJECTIVE.—

To illustrate some of the new and emerging immunohistochemical markers in the evaluation of tumors with undifferentiated or poorly differentiated morphology, with a focus on the workup in limited tissue samples to raise awareness of the issues involved with the pathologic workup in these challenging tumors.

DATA SOURCES.—

A literature review of new ancillary studies that can be applied to cytologic specimens was performed.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Knowledge of the patient's history and communication with the patient's clinical team is essential in formulating a differential diagnosis that can appropriately limit the differential diagnosis based on morphology, especially in small specimens. This information, in conjunction with classifying the tumor morphology (eg, epithelioid, spindled, neuroendocrine, basaloid/biphasic, mixed) gives a logical approach to choosing an initial immunohistochemical panel. Fortunately, immunohistochemistry is evolving quickly in the wake of groundbreaking molecular studies to develop new and better markers to further classify these difficult tumors beyond where we traditionally have been able to go.

Immunohistochemistry for Claudin-4 and BAP1 in the Differential Diagnosis between Sarcomatoid Carcinoma and Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma

(1) Background. In the differential diagnosis between sarcomatoid carcinoma (SC) and sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM), we aimed to investigate the role of Claudin-4 and BAP1, a panel recently used to distinguish conventional carcinoma from epithelioid mesothelioma. (2) Methods. We collected 41 surgical pleural biopsies of SM, 46 surgical resections of SC from different sites and 49 pleural biopsies of normal/hyperplastic mesothelium. All the cases were tested for Claudin-4 and BAP1 using immunohistochemistry. The statistical calculations of the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were performed. (3) Results: Claudin-4 was negative in 41/41 SMs, while it was positive in 18/36 (50.1%) SCs (eight diffusely, 10 focally) within their sarcomatous component. BAP1 was lost in 23/41 SMs, while it was regularly expressed in 46/46 SCs. All the cases of the normal/hyperplastic mesothelium were negative for Claudin-4 and retained the regular expression of BAP1. The Claudin-4 expression was useful for detecting SC (sensitivity, 39.1%; specificity, 100%) and the BAP1 loss was useful for diagnosing SM (sensitivity, 56.1%; specificity, 100%). (4) Conclusions. The staining for Claudin-4 and BAP1 exhibited a low/moderate sensitivity in diagnosing SC and SM (39.1% and 56.1%, respectively), but a very high specificity (100%). Claudin-4 was expressed only in SC and BAP1 loss was noted only in SM.

Differentiating malignant pleural mesothelioma and metastatic pleural disease based on a machine learning model with primary CT signs: A multicentre study

Rationale and Objectives

It is still a challenge to make confirming diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), especially differentiating from metastatic pleural disease (MPD). The aim of this study was to develop a model to distinguish MPM with MPD based on primary CT signs.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively recruited 150 MPM patients and 147 MPD patients from two centers and assigned them to training (115 MPM patients and 113 MPD patients) and testing (35 MPM patients and 34 MPD patients) cohorts. The images were analyzed for pleural thickening, hydrothorax, lymphadenopathy, thoracic volume and calcified pleural plaque (CPP). The selected clinical characteristics and primary CT signs comprised the model by multivariate logistic regression in the training cohort. Then the model was tested on the external testing cohort. ROC curve and F1 score were used to validate the capability of the model in both two cohorts.

Results

There were significant differences between two groups: (1) carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA); (2) nodular and mass pleural thickening; (3) the enhancement of pleura; (4) focal, diffuse and circumferential pleural thickening; (5) the thickest pleura; (6) thickening of diaphragmatic pleura; (7) multiple nodules and effusion of interlobar pleura; (8) hilar LN and ring enhancement of LN; (9) punctate and stipe CPP. The AUC and F1 score of the model were 0.970 and 0.857 in the training cohort, 0.955 and 0.818 in the testing cohort.

Conclusion

The model holds promise for use as a diagnostic tool to distinguish MPM from MPD.

Pleural mesothelioma classification-update and challenges

Mesothelial tumors are classified into benign or preinvasive tumors, and mesotheliomas. The benign or preinvasive group includes adenomatoid tumors, well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumors, and mesothelioma in situ. Malignant tumors are mesotheliomas and can be localized or diffuse. Histological classification of invasive mesotheliomas into three major subtypes-epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic is prognostically important. It also plays a significant role in the treatment decisions of patients diagnosed with this deadly disease. Grading and subtyping of epithelioid mesotheliomas have been one of the major changes in the recent WHO classification of pleural tumors. Mesothelioma in situ has emerged as a precisely defined clinico-pathologic entity that for diagnosis requires demonstration of loss of BAP1 or MTAP by immunohistochemistry, or CDKN2A homozygous deletion by FISH. The use of these two biomarkers improves the diagnostic sensitivity of effusion specimens  and limited tissue samples and is valuable in establishing the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma. In this review, recent changes in the histologic classification of pleural mesothelioma, importance of ancillary diagnostic studies, and molecular characteristics of mesotheliomas are discussed.

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.

When the Diagnosis of Mesothelioma Challenges Textbooks and Guidelines

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MPM) does not pose difficulties when presenting with usual clinico-radiologic features and morphology. Pathology textbooks and national/international guidelines generally describe the findings of classic MPM, underlining common clinical presentation, the gold standard of sampling techniques, usual morphologic variants, immunohistochemical results of several positive and negative primary antibodies in the differential diagnosis, and the role of novel molecular markers. Nevertheless, MPM often does not follow the golden rules in routine practice, while the literature generally does not sufficiently emphasize unusual features of its manifestation. This gap may potentially create problems for patients in sustaining a difficult diagnosis of MPM in clinical practice and during legal disputes. Indeed, the guidelines accidentally tend to favor the job of lawyers and pathologists defending asbestos-producing industries against patients suffering from MPM characterized by uncommon features. The current review is aimed at underlining the wide spectrum of clinical and radiological presentation of MPM, the possibility to consistently use cytology for diagnostic intent, the aberrant immunohistochemical expression using so-called specific negative and positive primary antibodies, and finally proposing some alternative and more unbiased approaches to the diagnosis of MPM.

Diagnostic utility of BAP1 for malignant pleural mesothelioma in pleural fluid specimens with atypical morphology

OBJECTIVE

To assess the utility of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in fluid samples with atypical cytology.

METHODS

Pleural fluid samples with an atypical mesothelial proliferation (diagnostic categories: 'atypical' and 'suspicious') received between January 2015 and March 2018 at a tertiary referral centre were identified. Results of routine IHC testing were recorded for each case. BAP1 by IHC was performed and a final diagnosis sought from subsequent pathology specimens, medical records, or consensus clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of 50 cases identified, 41 were reported as atypical and 9 as suspicious. Seven (14%) demonstrated loss of BAP1 staining, 40 retained BAP1 staining, 1 had heterogeneous staining, and 2 had insufficient cells for analysis. All seven cases with BAP1 loss were diagnosed with MPM on follow-up. Of those with retained BAP1, 52.5% (21) were subsequently diagnosed with MPM, while 40% (16) had non-MPM diagnoses after a median follow-up of 24 months. Three cases were not further investigated based on patient and clinician decision. The case with heterogeneous staining was diagnosed as mesothelioma by clinical consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

BAP1 IHC loss is highly specific for malignancy and has value as a rule-in test. Even in a tertiary centre with clinical interest in the cytological diagnosis of MPM this investigation was able to increase diagnostic accuracy beyond routine IHC studies. Cytological criteria remain valuable, as retained BAP1 in an atypical or suspicious mesothelial proliferation cannot exclude malignancy.

DNA Methylation Profiling Discriminates between Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma and Neoplastic or Reactive Histologic Mimics

The diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is challenging because of its potential overlap with other neoplasms or even with reactive conditions. DNA methylation analysis is effective in diagnosing tumors. In the present study, this approach was tested for use in MPM diagnosis. The DNA methylation patterns of a discovery cohort and an independent-validation cohort of MPMs were compared to those of 202 cases representing malignant and benign diagnostic mimics (angiosarcoma, desmoid-type fibromatosis, epithelioid sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, lung adenocarcinoma, lung squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, nodular fasciitis, reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, sclerosing fibrous pleuritis, solitary fibrous tumor, and synovial sarcoma). By both unsupervised hierarchical clustering and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding analysis, MPM samples in the discovery cohort exhibited a DNA methylation profile different from those of other neoplastic and reactive mimics. These results were confirmed in the independent validation cohort and by in silico analysis of the MPM-The Cancer Genome Atlas data set. Copy number variation profiles were also inferred to identify molecular hallmarks of MPM, including CDKN2A and NF2 deletions. Methylation profiling was effective in the diagnosis of MPM, although caution is advised in samples with low tumor cell content.

Metastasis of Sarcomatoid Malignant Mesothelioma With p16/CDKN2A Deletion Manifested as a Subcutaneous Mass in the Back: A Case Report and Review of Literature

Sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare and aggressive disease, and its diagnosis is challenging. A 60-year-old man presented with a recurrent subcutaneous mass in his right back after the initial resection. A chest computed tomography (CT) scan found right pleural thickening, nodular pleural thickening, pleural effusion, mediastinal, and right infraclavicular lymph nodes enlargement, which indicated a right pleura MM. Immunohistochemical stains of the resected mass showed sarcomatous atypical spindle cells, which were positive for pan-CKs (clone Anti-cytokeratin cocktail AE1/AE3), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), Wilm's tumor 1, podoplanin, vimentin and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and negative for Napsin A, thyroid transcription factor 1, CDX 2, calretinin and desmin, and fluorescent in situ hybridization detected homozygous p16/cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (p16/CDKN2A) deletion. The association of the chest CT features and the pathological assessment confirmed metastatic MM in the subcutaneous layer of the back. Moreover, positron emission tomography-CT showed multiple metastases in his brain. He developed massive right pleural effusion and chest tightness soon, and the mass kept growing despite local and systemic treatments. The patient die of pulmonary failure in 3 months.

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.

Diagnostic mesothelioma biomarkers in effusion cytology

Malignant mesothelioma is a rare malignancy with a poor prognosis whose development is related to asbestos fiber exposure. An increasing role of genetic predisposition has been recognized recently. Pleural biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis, in which the identification of pleural invasion by atypical mesothelial cell is a major criterion. Pleural effusion is usually the first sign of disease; therefore, a cytological specimen is often the initial or the only specimen available for diagnosis. Given that reactive mesothelial cells may show marked atypia, the diagnosis of mesothelioma on cytomorphology alone is challenging. Accordingly, cell block preparation is encouraged, as it permits immunohistochemical staining. Traditional markers of mesothelioma such as glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1) and insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3) are informative, but difficult to interpret when reactive proliferations aberrantly stain positive. BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) nuclear staining loss is highly specific for mesothelioma, but sensitivity is low in sarcomatoid tumors. Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A)/p16 homozygous deletion, assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization, is more specific for mesothelioma with better sensitivity, even in the sarcomatoid variant. The surrogate marker methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) has been found to demonstrate excellent diagnostic correlation with p16. The purpose of this review is to provide an essential appraisal of the literature regarding the diagnostic value of many of these emerging biomarkers for malignant mesothelioma in effusion cytology.

Role of Cytology in the Current Guidelines for Malignant Mesothelioma: Largest Study from India

INTRODUCTION

Cytology provides crucial window for early diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) since it is often the first and easily available material for evaluation, resulting in early treatment. Still, its role is overlooked in the current treatment guidelines. The aim of this study is to determine the sensitivity of cytomorphology and role of subsequent ancillary techniques in diagnosing MM.

METHODS

This is a 5-year retrospective analysis of MM in the tertiary oncology center to determine sensitivity of cytomorphology and subsequent role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in final diagnosis of MM according to the guidelines for cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma (GCDMM) laid by International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Cytomorphology and immunocytochemistry from effusions and fine needle aspirations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two of 128 cases of MM had cytology and cytomorphological criteria described in GCDMM were fulfilled in 61.3% cases. Architectural atypia was useful in identifying cases with low cytological atypia. Overall sensitivity of cytomorphology was 73.01%. Sensitivity of effusion cytology was 77.8%. Subsequent IHC on cell blocks revealed the sensitivity as 100% for mesothelin, calretinin, and cytokeratin 5/6; 87.5% for thrombomodulin; and 50% for WT1, while CEA and TTF1 showed 100% specificity. Treatment was given based on final diagnosis of MM given after IHC on cytology material in only 25.8% cases. However, it was possible in additional 35.5% cases. Mean survival was 10 months when diagnosed by cytology, compared to 7 months by histology.

CONCLUSIONS

Rather than ignoring the role of cytology in the diagnosis and treatment guidelines for MM, it is important to understand its strengths and limitations. Standardized guidelines in future can play an important role in more streamlined communication between cytopathologist and clinician.

Homozygous deletion of CDKN2A in malignant mesothelioma: Diagnostic utility, patient characteristics and survival in a UK mesothelioma centre

BACKGROUND

Detection of homozygous deletion of the p16 gene (CDKN2A) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been investigated as an ancillary technique in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.

METHOD

This retrospective study reviewed the results of all p16 FISH tests performed at a regional mesothelioma centre from February 2012 to November 2019 in cases of possible mesothelioma to examine the diagnostic utility of this test as well as patients characteristics and survival in p16 FISH positive mesothelioma versus p16 FISH negative mesothelioma.

RESULTS

P16 FISH testing was requested in 216 pathological samples in the study period. The test failure rate was 4% (10/216). Median time from request to result was 10 days (IQR 7-13, range 1-30). The sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV were 60 %, 100 %, 39 % and 100 % respectively. There were no false positive results and this genetic aberration was only detected in cases of mesothelioma. The prevalence of p16 FISH positive mesothelioma was higher in cytological specimens compared to histological specimens (75 % vs 58 %, p = 0.03) and lower in women compared to men (33 % vs 66 %, p = 0.003). P16 FISH positive mesothelioma was associated with significantly worse survival (median overall survival 285 vs 339 days, p = 0.0018). This remained significant after adjusting for confounding variables (OR 4.4, 95 %CI 1.84-11.14, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, 60 % of mesotheliomas harbour a homozygous deletion of CDKN2A and can be accurately, reliably and efficiently identified by p16 FISH testing. This test can be embedded within routine practice in mesothelioma pathways to enhance diagnostic accuracy.

A challenging diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma with osteosarcomatous differentiation metastasizing to bone

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an insidious primary neoplasm of the pleura that can be challenging to diagnose and is commonly considered to be only locally invasive. We present the case of a 74-year-old male who presented with clinical features of MPM but from whom pleural fluid and biopsies initially suggested benign pathology. He later developed diffuse bony metastases and re-examination of pleural biopsies using modern immunohistochemistry and molecular testing revealed a diagnosis of sarcomatoid and desmoplastic MPM with heterologous osteosarcomatous differentiation. This case not only demonstrates the rare potential of skeletal metastasis of MPM, but also highlights the importance of recognizing the utility of modern diagnostic tests and their potential to prevent the need for unnecessary invasive procedures. To our knowledge this is the first description of this rare histological sub-type presenting with skeletal metastases.

The "Brescia panel" (Claudin-4 and BRCA-associated protein 1) in the differential diagnosis of mesotheliomas with epithelioid features versus metastatic carcinomas

BACKGROUND

The distinction between mesothelioma with epithelioid features and metastatic carcinoma may be challenging, particularly on cytology. A novel 2-hit Claudin-4 and BRCA-associated protein 1 (BAP1) panel was investigated.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the panel on cytology from pleural effusions and matched biopsies, including 49 malignant mesotheliomas on cytology with 43 matched biopsies, 49 normal/reactive mesothelial proliferations, and 49 pleural metastatic carcinomas from different primaries with 21 matched pleural biopsies. The diagnostic role of the 4 categories obtained by crossing the immunostaining results was analyzed.

RESULTS

Claudin-4 strongly stained all metastatic carcinomas and tested completely negative in normal mesothelium, benign reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, and malignant mesothelioma. All normal and benign mesothelial proliferations and all carcinomas except 1 were immunoreactive for BAP1, whereas BAP1 loss was observed in 88% of malignant mesotheliomas. The expression of Claudin-4 alone excluded all benign and malignant mesothelial growth, consistently characterizing all metastatic carcinomas. Double negativity was evident in all malignant mesotheliomas, and double positivity was observed in all metastatic carcinomas. BAP1-positive/Claudin-4-negative status was observed only in malignant mesotheliomas and benign mesothelial proliferations. A single metastatic anal squamous cell carcinoma had BAP1-negative/Claudin-4-positive staining.

CONCLUSIONS

Claudin-4 expression was completely specific and sensitive for metastatic carcinoma, excluding mesothelial proliferations. BAP1 staining characterized 98% of metastatic carcinomas and 100% of benign mesothelial proliferations, whereas negativity was observed almost exclusively in mesotheliomas. This 2-hit panel is probably the best compromise for differentiating malignant mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma on either cytology or biopsy specimens.

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.

Differentiating Between Malignant Mesothelioma and Other Pleural Lesions Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

Histopathology, despite being the gold standard as a diagnostic tool, does not always provide a correct diagnosis for different pleural lesions. Although great progress was made in this field, the problem to differentiate between reactive and malignant pleural lesions still stimulates the search for additional diagnostic tools. Our research using vibrational spectroscopy and principal component analysis (PCA) statistical modeling represents a potentially useful tool to approach the problem. The objective method this paper explores is based on the correlation between different types of pleural lesions and their vibrational spectra. Obtained tissue spectra recorded by infrared spectroscopy allowed us to categorize spectra in different groups using a created PCA statistical model. The PCA model was built using tissues of known pathology as the model group. The validation samples were then used to confirm the functionality of our PCA model. Student's t-test was also used for comparing samples in paired groups. The PCA model was able to clearly differentiate the spectra of mesothelioma, metastasis and reactive changes (inflammation), and place them in discrete groups. Thus, we showed that Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy combined with PCA can differentiate pleural lesions with high sensitivity and specificity. This new approach could contribute in objectively differentiating specific pleural lesions, thus helping pathologists to better diagnose difficult pleural samples but also could shed additional light into the biology of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

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.

Updates in the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review article describes current diagnostic and treatment modalities for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

RECENT FINDINGS

Few randomized trials in MPM have demonstrated improved survival with current therapies. A randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in unresectable MPM is the only randomized trial of a new treatment regimen to demonstrate a survival benefit since cisplatin with pemetrexed became the standard of care for unresectable MPM in 2003. Unfortunately, in unresectable MPM, first-line chemotherapy alone or in combination with bevacizumab has demonstrated only limited improvements in overall survival. Recently, in nonrandomized observational studies, multimodality treatments with chemotherapy, surgery, radiation, and novel therapies have been associated with prolonged survival in select patients. Currently, there are no FDA approved second-line therapies, and clinical trial enrollment is recommended for second-line treatment.

SUMMARY

MPM remains difficult to treat and has an overall poor prognosis despite current multimodality treatment. Thoracoscopy with multiple pleural biopsies can provide adequate tissue specimens for diagnostic testing to distinguish histologic MPM subtypes and perform molecular profiling, which influence prognosis and treatment options. In early clinical trials, immunotherapies and therapies directed against cancer-associated antigens and oncogenic alterations are emerging as promising future treatments.

Biomarkers for Early Diagnosis and Prognosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: The Quest Goes on

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MM) is a highly aggressive tumor characterized by a poor prognosis. Although its carcinogenesis mechanism has not been strictly understood, about 80% of MM can be attributed to occupational and/or environmental exposure to asbestos fibers. The identification of non-invasive molecular markers for an early diagnosis of MM has been the subject of several studies aimed at diagnosing the disease at an early stage. The most studied biomarker is mesothelin, characterized by a good specificity, but it has low sensitivity, especially for non-epithelioid MM. Other protein markers are Fibulin-3 and osteopontin which have not, however, showed a superior diagnostic performance. Recently, interesting results have been reported for the HMGB1 protein in a small but limited series. An increase in channel proteins involved in water transport, aquaporins, have been identified as positive prognostic factors in MM, high levels of expression of aquaporins in tumor cells predict an increase in survival. MicroRNAs and protein panels are among the new indicators of interest. None of the markers available today are sufficiently reliable to be used in the surveillance of subjects exposed to asbestos or in the early detection of MM. Our aim is to give a detailed account of biomarkers available for MM.

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.