GATA3 Immunohistochemistry for Distinguishing Sarcomatoid and Desmoplastic Mesothelioma From Sarcomatoid Carcinoma of the Lung

SATB2 is an Emergent Biomarker of Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma: A Series with Comprehensive Biomarker and Molecular Studies

Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) is a rare and aggressive thyroid malignancy typically comprised of undifferentiated tumor cells with various histologic morphologies, which makes the diagnosis challenging. These tumors commonly show loss of thyroglobulin and TTF1 with preservation of cytokeratin (67%) and Paired Box Gene 8 (PAX8) (55%) expression. Identification of a sensitive immunohistochemical stain to aid in the diagnosis of ATC would be beneficial. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) against special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2 (SATB2) protein is a sensitive and specific marker expressed in colorectal adenocarcinoma and bone or soft tissue tumors with osteoblastic differentiation. However, SATB2 is also expressed in other sarcomatous/undifferentiated neoplasms lacking osteoblastic differentiation. Using quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) we showed that there is variable expression of SATB2 mRNA expression in ATCs. To evaluate the role of SATB2 protein expression in ATC, we performed PAX8, SATB2, pancytokeratin (AE1/AE3 & CAM5.2), claudin-4 and TTF1 immunostaining on 23 cases. ATCs showed retained expression of PAX8 in 65% (15/23); SATB2 was detected in 74% (17/23); pancytokeratin was expressed in 65% (15/23); claudin-4 was expressed in 35% (8/23) and TTF1 showed expression in 13% (3/23) of cases. Furthermore, 83% (5/6) of ATCs which lacked SATB2 expression, retained PAX8 expression, while 88% (7/8) of the tumors without PAX8 expression were positive for SATB2. Differentiated follicular cell-derived thyroid cancers (n = 30), differentiated high grade thyroid carcinoma (n = 3), and poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma (n = 8) were negative for SATB2 immunoreactivity. Next-generation selected cases detected the commonly identified oncogenic variants including those in BRAF, RAS, TP53, and TERT promoter. Overall, we hereby demonstrate that SATB2 IHC may be used to support the diagnosis of ATC.

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

CONTEXT.—

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

OBJECTIVE.—

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

DATA SOURCES.—

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

CONCLUSIONS.—

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

Mesothelioma: molecular pathology and biomarkers

Diffuse mesotheliomas are characterized by recurrent genomic alterations involving tumor suppressors and epigenetic regulators such as BAP1, CDKN2A, MTAP, and NF2. Depending on the differential diagnosis as informed by histologic assessment, one can apply the appropriate immunohistochemical and/or molecular panels to reach the correct pathologic diagnosis, sometimes even in cases with limited tissues. Biomarkers aid in the diagnosis of mesothelioma in the following scenarios: 1) For a tumor that is overtly malignant, how can one distinguish mesothelioma from other tumors? 2) For a mesothelial proliferation, how can one distinguish mesothelioma from a reactive process? To distinguish mesotheliomas from carcinomas, at least two positive and two negative markers are currently recommended. To distinguish sarcomatoid mesothelioma from pleomorphic carcinoma, even more markers-and sometimes molecular testing-are needed. To distinguish mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial conditions, useful immunohistochemical biomarkers include BAP1, MTAP, and merlin, which serve as surrogates for the corresponding gene mutation status. In patients with unusual clinical history, for tumors with a peculiar microscopic appearance, and/or in cases with an equivocal immunophenotypic profile, molecular testing can help to exclude mimics and to confirm the pathologic diagnosis.

A Subset of Thoracic SMARCA4-Deficient Undifferentiated Tumors Express GATA3

Thoracic SMARCA4-deficient undifferentiated tumor (SMARCA4-UT) is a rare and highly aggressive malignant neoplasm characterized by high-grade undifferentiated morphologic features and recurrent inactivating mutations of SMARCA4. These tumors consistently exhibit loss of SMARCA4 (BRG1) while displaying variable expression of other nonspecific markers. Recently, we encountered a SMARCA4-UT demonstrating immunoreactivity for GATA3, and we sought to characterize this phenomenon in a larger series.

A total of nine SMARCA4-UTs were examined from 3 large academic institutions. The clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics were studied and GATA3 immunohistochemistry was performed.

The cohort included 5 male and 4 female patients, with a median age of 54 years and a median smoking history of 37 pack-years. At initial diagnosis, mediastinal lymph node involvement was observed in 5 patients (56%) while distant metastases were present in 7 patients (78%). The median survival was 6 months. Histologically, the tumors were characterized by sheets of undifferentiated epithelioid and/or rhabdoid cells, accompanied by frequent mitotic figures and necrosis. Immunohistochemically, all tumors displayed a complete loss of BRG1 expression. Notably, 4 of 9 tumors (44%) were positive for GATA3 expression, including one tumor that exhibited strong and diffuse immunoreactivity.

GATA3 expression in SMARCA4-UT may pose diagnostic challenges, requiring differentiation from other GATA3-positive tumors. This distinction is crucial for accurate prognostication and treatment decisions.

Nonmesothelial Spindle Cell Tumors of Pleura and Pericardium

Spindle cell lesions of the pleura and pericardium are rare. Distinction from sarcomatoid mesothelioma, which has a range of morphologic patterns, can be difficult, but accurate diagnosis matters. This article provides practical guidance for the diagnosis of pleural spindle cell neoplasms, focusing on primary lesions.

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.

Mesothelioma in the pleura, pericardium and peritoneum: Recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)

AIMS

Mesothelioma is a rare malignancy of the serosal membranes that is commonly related to exposure to asbestos. Despite extensive research and clinical trials, prognosis to date remains poor. Consistent, comprehensive and reproducible pathology reporting form the basis of all future interventions for an individual patient, but also ensures that meaningful data are collected to identify predictive and prognostic markers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This article details the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) process and the development of the international consensus mesothelioma reporting data set. It describes the 'core' and 'non-core' elements to be included in pathology reports for mesothelioma of all sites, inclusive of clinical, macroscopic, microscopic and ancillary testing considerations. An international expert panel consisting of pathologists and a medical oncologist produced a set of data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence, and in light of the changes in the 2021 WHO Classification of Tumours. The commentary focuses particularly upon new entities such as mesothelioma in situ and provides background on relevant and essential ancillary testing as well as implementation of the new requirement for tumour grading.

CONCLUSION

We recommend widespread and consistent implementation of this data set, which will facilitate accurate reporting and enhance the consistency of data collection, improve the comparison of epidemiological data, support retrospective research and ultimately help to improve clinical outcomes. To this end, all data sets are freely available worldwide on the ICCR website (www.iccr-cancer.org/data-sets).

Utility of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Pleuropulmonary and Mediastinal Cancers: A Review and Update

CONTEXT.—

Immunohistochemistry has become a valuable ancillary tool for the accurate classification of pleuropulmonary and mediastinal neoplasms necessary for therapeutic decisions and predicting prognostic outcome. Diagnostic accuracy has significantly improved because of the continuous discoveries of tumor-associated biomarkers and the development of effective immunohistochemical panels.

OBJECTIVE.—

To increase the accuracy of diagnosis and classify pleuropulmonary neoplasms through immunohistochemistry.

DATA SOURCES.—

Literature review and the author's research data and personal practice experience.

CONCLUSIONS.—

This review article highlights that appropriately selecting immunohistochemical panels enables pathologists to effectively diagnose most primary pleuropulmonary neoplasms and differentiate primary lung tumors from a variety of metastatic tumors to the lung. Knowing the utilities and pitfalls of each tumor-associated biomarker is essential to avoid potential diagnostic errors.

The over diagnosis of diffuse mesothelioma: An analysis of 311 cases with recommendations for the avoidance of pitfalls

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of mesothelioma may be challenging. We investigated a large database of cases in order to determine the frequency with which a diagnosis of mesothelioma was made incorrectly and the most frequent causes of error.

DESIGN

A database including more than 4000 consultation cases of histologically confirmed mesothelioma was examined to identify cases in which mesothelioma was diagnosed by at least one pathologist when the available information pointed towards a different diagnosis.

RESULTS

There were 311 cases misdiagnosed as mesothelioma. The most common category was metastatic carcinoma to the pleura or peritoneum (129 cases: 73 lung carcinomas, 15 renal cell carcinomas). The next most common category was primary lung cancer (111 cases: 55 sarcomatoid carcinoma, 56 pseudomesotheliomatous carcinoma). The third most common category was primary malignancies arising from or near the serosal membranes (33 cases). The fourth most common category was fibrous pleurisy (38 cases). The most common errors were failure to consider important radiographic information regarding the gross distribution of tumor, lack of awareness or consideration of another malignancy, overreliance on certain immunohistochemical results, and failure to perform certain diagnostic histochemical, immunohistochemical, or ultrastructural studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a number of diagnostic pitfalls that can lead to the over diagnosis of mesothelioma. Careful attention to clinical and radiographic information as well as performance of appropriate ancillary tests can help to prevent such misdiagnoses. Detailed examples will be presented to assist in the avoidance of these pitfalls with emphasis on the most commonly observed errors.

Pleural Mesothelioma: Current Practice and Approach

Pleural mesotheliomas represent one of the most common diagnostic challenges in thoracic pathology. The diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma weighs heavily on clinical and radiologic information. In addition, in the past, before the era of immunohistochemistry, the diagnosis was aided with the use of special histochemical stains-PAS, D-PAS, and mucicarmine, which now very much have been replaced by immunohistochemical stains. In the era of immunohistochemistry, a combination of carcinomatous epitopes and positive mesothelioma markers has become paramount in the diagnosis of mesothelioma, and more recently the use of molecular techniques has become another ancillary tool in supporting such a diagnosis. At the same time, the treatment and clinical outcome of these patients may in some measure be determined by the histopathological features of the tumor and one that also over the years has changed from a palliative type to surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or a combination of these types. The histopathological growth patterns of mesothelioma are also wide, and in some cases may mimic other tumors that may be primary or metastatic to the pleura. Therefore, the assessment of the diagnosis of mesothelioma is one that requires a global view of the different factors including clinical, radiologic, pathologic-including immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnosis.

TRPS1 outperforms GATA3 in pleural effusions with metastatic breast carcinoma versus mesothelioma

INTRODUCTION

In evaluating malignant pleural fluid cytology, metastatic adenocarcinomas and mesotheliomas are often differential diagnoses. GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3) has historically been used to confirm metastatic breast carcinomas; however, GATA3 has low specificity if mesothelioma is included in differential diagnoses. Trichorhinophalangeal syndrome type 1 (TRPS1) protein is expressed in all types of breast carcinomas, with reported high specificity and sensitivity. We investigated the performance of TRPS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and compared it to GATA3 in pleural fluids diagnosed with metastatic breast carcinoma and mesothelioma.

METHODS

Thirty-six consecutive ThinPrep pleural fluids and 4 pleural fine needle aspirations (FNAs) with diagnoses of metastatic breast carcinoma (21) and mesothelioma (19) were retrieved, and IHC with TRPS1 and GATA3 was performed on all. Immunoreactivity scores for TRPS1 were calculated by multiplying percentage of immunoreactive cells by staining intensity. Immunoreactivity scores were negative if 0 or 1, low positive if 2, intermediate positive if 3 or 4, or high positive if 6 or 9. Nuclear immunoreactivity of ≥10% with at least moderate intensity was judged GATA3 positive.

RESULTS

GATA3 showed immunoreactivity in all metastatic breast carcinomas and 84% of mesotheliomas. TRPS1 was immunoreactive in all breast carcinoma cases (18 with a score of 9 and 3 with a score of 6). TRPS1 showed low positivity in 5% of mesothelioma cases with all other cases being negative.

CONCLUSION

When cytomorphologic differential diagnoses of mesothelioma exist, TRPS1 is a more specific marker than GATA3 for confirmation of metastatic breast carcinoma in pleural fluid cytology.

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.

A Case of GATA3 Positive Pleomorphic Liposarcoma, Epithelioid Variant: A Diagnostic Pitfall

Pleomorphic liposarcoma is a rare malignant adipocytic tumor showing undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma morphology with various degrees of epithelioid features. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish from carcinoma metastasis. Immunohistochemical panel is very important for differential diagnosis; however, there is a risk that unexpected staining could lead to misinterpretation. We report a pleomorphic liposarcoma, epithelioid variant, in an 88-year-old man, with tricky-positive staining for GATA3. Histological examination revealed a tumor with epithelioid morphology. The tumor consists of solid sheets of epithelioid tumor cells with focal aggregates of pleomorphic lipoblasts. Immunohistochemically, the adipocytic tumor cell areas were positive for S100 protein, and the epithelioid tumor cells showed CAM 5.2 positivity. GATA3 was diffusely positive. The combination of CAM 5.2 and GATA3 staining suggested the possibility of metastatic cancer, but systemic clinical examinations did not detect any presence of a primary tumor, including urinary bladder, breasts, and salivary glands. The pathological diagnosis of pleomorphic liposarcoma, epithelioid variant, was made because of the presence of malignant lipoblasts. Our report may contribute for differential diagnosis of pleomorphic liposarcoma, epithelioid variant, with unexpected positive immunoreaction for GATA3.

Utility of TRPS-1 immunohistochemistry in diagnosis of metastatic breast carcinoma in cytology specimens

INTRODUCTION

At present, GATA binding protein 3 (GATA-3) is the most frequently used diagnostic immunohistochemical (IHC) marker for breast carcinoma (BC). However, it is not specific and has very low sensitivity for triple-negative BC (TNBC). SRY-box transcription factor 10 (SOX-10) and trichorhinophalangeal syndrome type 1 (TRPS-1) have been suggested for inclusion in the diagnostic workup of TNBC. TRPS-1 has not been established in cytology specimens as a diagnostic IHC marker for metastatic BC (MBC). Hence, in the present study we evaluated the utility of TRPS-1 in diagnosing MBC in cytology specimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MBC cases diagnosed on cytology specimens from January to October 2020 were included in the present study. Only cases with hormonal status available and ≥20 tumor cells on cell blocks were included in the study. The cell blocks were assessed for TRPS-1, GATA-3, and SOX-10 IHC marker positivity (intensity and percentage of tumor cells). The results were correlated with the specimen type (fine needle aspiration [FNA] versus body fluid) and various BC prognostic subgroups.

RESULTS

We analyzed 61 cases, including 33 body fluid and 28 FNA (13 lymph node, 10 bone, 2 liver, 2 soft tissue, and 1 lung) specimens. TRPS-1 had 97.2% positivity in ER/PR+ (estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive) MBC compared with GATA-3, which had 100% positivity in the same group. TRPS-1 showed high positivity in 35 of 37 cases (94.6%) and intermediate positivity in 1 (2.6%) and was negative/low positive in 1 case (2.7%). In contrast, GATA-3 showed high positivity for all 37 cases (100%). SOX-10 showed positivity in only 1 of 37 cases (2.7%), with intermediate positivity. In the HER2+ (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive) group, TRPS-1 showed high positivity in 5 of 7 cases (71.4%), intermediate positivity in 1 case (14.3%), and negativity in 1 case (14.3%). However, GATA-3 showed high positivity in 6 of 7 cases (85.7%) and negative/low positivity in 1 case (14.3%). SOX-10 was negative in all 7 cases. In TNBC, TRPS-1 showed high positivity in 16 of 17 cases (94%) and intermediate positivity in 1 (5.9%), and GATA-3 showed high positivity in 9 (53%), intermediate positivity in 2 (11.8%), and low positive/negative in 6 of the 17 cases (35.3%). TRPS-1 expression was significantly higher than GATA-3 expression for the number of positive cases (P = 0.07), mean percentage of positive tumor cells (P = 0.005), and intensity of reactivity (P = 0.005). SOX-10 expression was present in only 5 of 17 cases (29%), with a mean percentage of positivity in the tumor cells of 26.5% and intensity of 0.8. No differences were found in the IHC results between the different specimen types (FNA versus fluid) in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

TRPS-1 is a highly sensitive new diagnostic IHC marker for breast carcinoma, with a similar positivity rate in ER/PR+ and HER2+ BC compared with GATA-3 and a higher positivity rate than GATA-3 and SOX-10 in TNBC in cytology specimens. In particular, when only a few clusters of tumor cells are present on the cell block, TRPS-1 can be highly useful, because its mean percentage of positive tumor cells and intensity are higher than those of other IHC markers.

Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma with Bland Histologic Features: A Potential Pitfall in Diagnosis

Sarcomatoid mesotheliomas can be challenging to diagnose on small biopsy specimens, where limited material may preclude definitive assessment of invasion and lesional cells can have relatively bland cytology with no mesothelial marker expression. We report a case of a patient who presented with a pleural effusion and had subsequent pleural biopsy that showed a bland, uniform spindle cell proliferation in a mildly myxoid background. There was little if any collagen; no chest wall, soft tissue, or fat; and mesothelial markers were negative. The cells were positive for pancytokeratin and GATA3 by immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridization showed a "negative" result for homozygous loss of CDKN2A; however, there was partial (heterozygous) loss of one allele. A diagnosis of atypical spindle cell proliferation was made based on these findings. Several months later, the patient had a repeat pleural biopsy that showed spindled cells with more pleomorphism, areas of invasion into the chest wall, and the same partial loss of CDKN2A, consistent with a sarcomatoid mesothelioma. This case underscores the challenges present on small biopsy specimens, the fact that sarcomatoid mesotheliomas can be relatively bland appearing with focal pleomorphism, and that heterozygous loss of CDKN2A should be considered a positive result indicative of a neoplastic process.

Loss of Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase by Immunohistochemistry Is Common in Pulmonary Sarcomatoid Carcinoma and Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma

OBJECTIVES

Differentiating malignant pleural mesothelioma from benign reactive mesothelial processes can be quite challenging. Ancillary tests such as BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) immunohistochemistry and p16 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are helpful tools to aid in this distinction. Immunohistochemistry for methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) has recently been proposed as an effective surrogate marker for p16 FISH and is an attractive alternative test due to shorter turnaround time. There are little data regarding the specificity of MTAP loss for mesothelioma or whether it may be useful to distinguish mesothelioma from the most common entity in the differential diagnosis, sarcomatoid carcinoma.

METHODS

We studied well-characterized cases of sarcomatoid carcinoma (n = 34) and sarcomatoid mesothelioma (n = 62), which were stained for MTAP (clone 2G4) and BAP1 (clone C-4).

RESULTS

Loss of MTAP expression was observed in 17 (50%) of 34 pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinomas; BAP1 expression was retained in all of the cases in which it was performed (n = 31). MTAP expression was lost in 38 (61%) of 62 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas; BAP1 was lost in 6 (10%) of 62. In the six cases with BAP1 loss, five also had loss of MTAP, while MTAP expression was retained in one.

CONCLUSIONS

Loss of MTAP expression by immunohistochemistry is common in pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma, as it is present in half of cases. This rate is similar to what is observed in sarcomatoid mesothelioma (61%). Therefore, this stain is not useful to distinguish between these two malignancies. MTAP loss is more common than BAP1 loss in the setting of sarcomatoid mesothelioma (61% vs 10%, respectively).

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.

Role of GATA3 in tumor diagnosis: A review

GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3) belongs to a family of transcription factors comprising six members. These proteins identify G-A-T-A containing sequences in the target gene and bind to DNA target via two zinc-finger domains. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of GATA3 in the diagnosis of tumors and its value as a prognostic marker. To perform this review, a comprehensive search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases from 1985 to 2020. Articles were considered thoroughly by independent reviewers and data were extracted in predefined forms. Final synthesis was conducted by using appropriate data from included articles in each topic. Studies have shown that GATA3 has a critical role in the development of epithelial structures in both embryonic and adult tissues. The majority of studies regarding GATA3 expression in tumor evaluation focused on breast and urothelial neoplasms, whether primary or metastatic. Its sensitivity in these neoplasms has been reported to be high and made this marker more valuable than other available immunohistochemistry markers. However, GATA3 expression was not restricted to these tumors. Studies have shown that GATA3 immunostaining could be a useful tool in various tumors in kidney, salivary gland, endocrine system, hematopoietic system, and skin. GATA3 can also be used as a useful prognostic tool. Although GATA3 is a multi-specific immunohistochemical stain, it is a valuable marker in the panel for confirming many epithelial or mesenchymal neoplasms as both a diagnostic and prognostic tool.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma with heterologous elements

AIMS

Malignant pleural mesothelioma with heterologous elements (such as osseous, cartilaginous or rhabdomyoblastic differentiation) is very rare. We tried to differentiate such mesothelioma cases from extraskeletal pleural osteosarcoma, which is very challenging.

METHODS

We compared 10 malignant pleural mesotheliomas (three biphasic and seven sarcomatoid types) with two pleural osteosarcomas using clinicopathological and immunohistochemical methods, and also fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) to examine for homozygous deletion of p16.

RESULTS

The median age was 72 years for mesotheliomas, and 69 years for osteosarcoma. For mesothelioma, eight cases were male and two were female. Growth was diffuse in all mesothelioma cases except case 10, where it was localised, as it was for the two osteosarcomas. Among mesothelioma cases, 80% displayed osteosarcomatous and 60% chondromatous elements, while 10% exhibited rhabdomyoblastic ones. Immunohistochemical labelling for calretinin and AE1/AE3 was present in 8/10 and 7/10 mesotheliomas, respectively, but in only one osteosarcoma. Loss of methylthioadenosine phosphorylase was seen in 5/7 mesotheliomas. FISH analysis revealed homozygous deletion of p16 in 5/8 mesothelioma and 2/2 osteosarcoma. Median survival was 6.5 months after biopsy or surgical operation in mesothelioma, and 12 months after operation in osteosarcoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Although median survival was longer for osteosarcoma than for malignant mesothelioma, we could not differentiate mesothelioma from pleural osteosarcoma on the combined basis of clinicopathological and immunohistochemical data, and FISH analysis. However, diffuse growth was more frequent in mesothelioma than in osteosarcoma.

A Case of Pulmonary Embolism with Sarcomatoid Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma with Long-Term Pleural Effusion

Background

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive tumor that originates from pleural mesothelial cells. In recent years, with the development of asbestos-related industries and the increase in air pollution, its incidence has been increased. The incidence of pulmonary embolism combined with sarcomatoid MPM is very low and the prognosis is extremely poor. We here report a case of a patient with long term of pleural effusion and finally diagnosed as pulmonary embolism with sarcomatoid MPM.

Case

A 75-year-old male with a 30-year history of asbestos exposure was admitted to our hospital due to chest pain and difficulty in breathing after exercise. Radiologic examination revealed pleural effusion, computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) suggests pulmonary embolism, and we consider pleural effusion caused by pulmonary embolism. After anticoagulant therapy for pulmonary embolism and pleural puncture to reduce pleural effusion, the patient's symptoms improved. However, after that, the patient was still admitted to the hospital several times because of recurrent chest pain and dyspnea symptoms, and radiologic examination always showed unexplained pleural effusion. Finally, pathological and immunohistochemical examinations of the pleural biopsy specimens were performed, and the diagnosis was confirmed as sarcomatoid MPM.

Conclusion

In summary, sarcomatoid MPM with pulmonary embolism is relatively rare, and the prognosis is poor. Clinicians need to be alert to its occurrence. When the first diagnosis is confirmed and the effect of targeted treatment is still not good, the possibility of other diseases should be considered. In clinical practice, pleural biopsy guided by PET-CT is a good choice for patients with sarcomatoid MPM who cannot tolerate open pleural biopsies or thoracoscopy. And patients should undergo pleural morphology and immunohistochemistry as soon as possible, which are helpful for timely diagnosis.

Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma: A Clinicopathological and Immunohistochemical Study of 64 Cases

Sixty-four cases of sarcomatoid pleural mesothelioma represent the basis of this study. The patients are 51 men and 13 women between the ages of 42 and 79 years, who presented with symptoms of chest pain, cough, and weight loss. Diagnostic imaging showed the presence of diffuse pleural thickening with encasement of the lung parenchyma in all the cases. All patients had surgical resection via extrapleural pneumonectomy. By immunohistochemistry, all cases were positive for cytokeratin AE1/AE3; however, reactivity with other markers including keratin 5/6, calretinin, and D2-40 was seen in different proportions, whereas a few cases showed positive staining for GATA3, WT1, and p40. All tumors were negative for carcinomatous epitopes (carcinoembryonic antigen, CD15, and TTF1). Our findings show that even though the use of immunohistochemical stains plays an important role in the final interpretation, the best results are accomplished by a global interpretation of clinical, radiographical, and immunohistochemical findings. It is also important to highlight that it does not seem to be a single immunohistochemical stain that is pathognomonic of sarcomatoid mesothelioma and that some other stains that are commonly used for other tumors may also show positive staining in a small percentage of sarcomatoid mesotheliomas.

Immunochemistry in the work-up of mesothelioma and its differential diagnosis and mimickers

The differential diagnosis in cellular effusions with cytological atypia often includes malignant mesothelioma (MM), reactive mesothelial proliferation, and malignancies of metastatic origin, particularly carcinomas. The International Reporting System for Serous Fluid recently established guidelines for reporting MM. In conjunction with the cytomorphologic evaluation, the role of immunochemistry (IC) was emphasized as a very useful tool in the workup of serous fluids, especially with the availability of novel markers. Utilizing a panel of markers, IC allows the characterization of the cells, whether mesothelial or not, and when mesothelial origin is established, IC can frequently assist in delineating its benign or malignant nature. IC can also confirm metastatic disease, allowing the identification of the primary origin in most cases. This review summarizes the current status of IC and its role in the diagnosis of MM and its differential diagnosis in serous fluids.

Utility of Immunohistochemistry for MUC4 and GATA3 to Aid in the Distinction of Pleural Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma From Pulmonary Sarcomatoid Carcinoma

CONTEXT.—

Distinguishing pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma from pleural sarcomatoid mesothelioma is challenging because of overlapping histology, immunophenotype, and clinical features. Reliable immunohistochemical markers to aid in this distinction would be very valuable. Recent studies have proposed that MUC4 expression is common in sarcomatoid carcinoma but not in sarcomatoid mesothelioma, with the converse pattern reported for GATA3.

OBJECTIVE.—

To further explore the utility of MUC4 and GATA3 in distinguishing pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma from sarcomatoid mesothelioma.

DESIGN.—

Well-characterized cases of sarcomatoid carcinoma (n = 32) and sarcomatoid mesothelioma (n = 64) were included. Diagnoses were confirmed by thoracic pathologists with incorporation of immunophenotype, clinical, and radiographic features. Whole-tissue sections were stained for GATA3 and MUC4.

RESULTS.—

Patients with sarcomatoid carcinoma and sarcomatoid mesothelioma had similar mean age and male predominance. GATA3 was positive in 63 of 64 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas (98%; 42 diffuse, 16 patchy, 5 focal), and 15 of 32 sarcomatoid carcinomas (47%; 3 diffuse, 8 patchy, 4 focal). MUC4 was positive in 2 of 64 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas (3%; 1 patchy, 1 focal), and in 12 of 32 sarcomatoid carcinomas (38%; 5 diffuse, 6 patchy, 1 focal).

CONCLUSIONS.—

Diffuse GATA3 expression favors sarcomatoid mesothelioma over sarcomatoid carcinoma, which rarely shows diffuse expression (sensitivity and specificity of diffuse staining 66% and 94%, respectively). Focal and patchy GATA3 expression is observed in both tumor types, and therefore is not helpful in this distinction. Sensitivity of MUC4 for sarcomatoid carcinoma was low in our cohort, positive in only 38% with frequent patchy staining, but it was quite specific.

GATA3 is a useful immunohistochemical marker for distinguishing sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma from lung sarcomatoid carcinoma and organizing pleuritis

Sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma (SMM) tends to occur in the pleura and is morphologically similar to lung sarcomatoid carcinoma (LSC) and organizing pleuritis (OP). Because SMM often does not express mesothelial markers, it is very difficult to distinguish from LSC and OP. GATA-binding protein 3 (GATA3) is a specific immunohistochemical (IHC) marker of breast and urothelial carcinoma. We routinely find that GATA is expressed in MM; however, GATA3 expression in SMM and its reference value for distinguishing SMM from LSC and OP remain unclear. Here, we used IHC methods to detect the expression of GATA3 and classic mesothelial markers in 17 SMM, 12 LSC, and 7 OP cases. We detected the following expression rates in SMM versus LSC cases: GATA3 (70.6% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.008), calretinin (52.9% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.019), Wilms tumor (WT)-1 (64.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.000), D2-40 (47.1% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.126), CK5/6 (35.3% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.694), and pan-cytokeratin (CKpan) (88.2% vs. 100.0%, p = 0.498). The specificities of calretinin, WT-1, and GATA3 in distinguishing SMM from LSC were 91.7%, 100%, and 83.3%, respectively, and combinations of any two of these three markers exhibited 100% specificity for SMM. Notably, the sensitivity of calretinin+/WT1+ staining for SMM was only 23.5%, which increased to 64.7% after including GATA3. Furthermore, all OP cases showed partial or diffuse expression of CKpan, WT-1, and D2-40 but no GATA3 and calretinin expression. In conclusion, GATA3 is an IHC marker with excellent sensitivity and specificity for SMM, and the combined consideration of GATA3, calretinin, and WT-1 was best for distinguishing SMM from LSC. Moreover, CKpan, WT-1, and D2-40 had no value for distinguishing SMM from OP, and GATA3 and calretinin were the most specific markers for distinguishing these two lesions.

Pathology of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Despite multiple diagnostic toolkits, the diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma relies primarily on proper histologic assessment. The definitive diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma is based on the pathologic assessment of tumor tissue, which can be obtained from core biopsy sampling, pleurectomy, or other more extensive resections, such as extrapleural pneumonectomy. Given its rarity and overlapping microscopic features with other conditions, the histologic diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma is challenging. This review discusses the pathologic features and the differential diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma, including select diagnostic pitfalls.

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.

Circulating biomarkers in malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive tumor strictly connected to asbestos exposure. Prognosis is dismal as diagnosis commonly occurs in advanced stage. Radiological screenings have not proven to be effective and also pathological diagnosis may be challenging. In the era of precision oncology, validation of robust non-invasive biomarkers for screening of asbestos-exposed individuals, assessment of prognosis and prediction of response to treatments remains an important unmet clinical need. This review provides an overview on current understanding and possible applications of liquid biopsy in MPM, mostly focused on the utility as diagnostic and prognostic test.

The potential utility of GATA binding protein 3 for diagnosis of malignant pleural mesotheliomas

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is associated with asbestos exposure and poor outcomes. The usefulness of immunohistochemistry for diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, especially the desmoplastic type, is limited, and more effective markers are required. GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3) has been suggested as a diagnostic marker for sarcomatoid mesothelioma. The potential usefulness of GATA3 for prognostication and its clinical and pathological correlations in different subtypes of mesothelioma have not been evaluated. We investigated the immunohistochemical labeling and associations for GATA3, BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1), and Ki67 labeling in three major histological types of pleural malignant mesotheliomas. We examined 149 clinically annotated malignant mesotheliomas and assessed associations of GATA3 expression with clinical variables and prognosis. In addition, we labeled 10 cases of fibrous pleuritis with GATA3, all of which were negative. GATA3 was positive in 75 of 149 (50%) mesotheliomas, with the highest incidence of labeling seen in the sarcomatoid subtype (73%), compared with the biphasic (50%) and epithelioid (40%), mesotheliomas. A total of eight desmoplastic mesotheliomas showed labeling with GATA3. Patients whose tumors had sarcomatoid histology showed poorer survival than those with the other subtypes (p < 0.001), but overall GATA3 labeling did not have a statistically significant association with survival (p = 0.602). There was no association of GATA3 labeling and BAP1 status or Ki67 index. Our study includes the largest cohort of mesotheliomas that has been labeled for GATA3 to date. GATA3 is a useful marker for sarcomatoid mesothelioma, including the desmoplastic subtype. Discordance in GATA3 and BAP1 labeling of epithelioid and sarcomatoid components in the biphasic subtype is not uncommon.

Frequent expression of conventional endothelial markers in pleural mesothelioma: usefulness of claudin-5 as well as combined traditional markers to distinguish mesothelioma from angiosarcoma

OBJECTIVES

Distinguishing pleural sarcomatoid mesotheliomas from true sarcomas is challenging because the former does not always express the mesothelial markers, and diagnosis is often made on the basis of keratin expression. Consequently, sarcomas such as angiosarcomas that express keratin complicate the differential diagnosis. Furthermore, some mesotheliomas have been reported to express endothelial markers. The aim of this study is to identify useful markers for distinguishing pleural sarcomatoid mesothelioma from angiosarcoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study enrolled 147 patients with pleural mesothelioma-93 with epithelioid, 25 with biphasic, and 29 with sarcomatoid subtypes-and 41 patients with angiosarcomas in various organs. The expression levels of cytokeratin, mesothelial, and endothelial markers were assayed in both groups to identify the markers that could assist in distinguishing mesothelioma from angiosarcoma. Cytokeratin (AE1/AE3, CAM 5.2), endothelial (CD31, CD34, ERG, factor VIII, and claudin-5), and mesothelial (calretinin, WT-1, podoplanin (D2-40), EMA, and CK5/6) markers were immunohistochemically assayed using tissue blocks.

RESULTS

More than 90% of the mesotheliomas and less than 20% of the angiosarcomas expressed cytokeratin. Calretinin was expressed in 82% of all types of mesotheliomas but in only 48% of sarcomatoid mesotheliomas. Endothelial markers were expressed in mesothelioma tissues-CD31 in 10.3%, CD34 in 3.5%, ERG in 29%, and factor VIII in 3.4%-and the positivity was higher in sarcomatoid than in epithelioid and biphasic mesotheliomas. Claudin-5 was expressed in all the angiosarcomas, but not in any of the mesotheliomas.

CONCLUSION

We found overlapping immunophenotypes in pleural mesotheliomas and angiosarcomas, but the sensitivity and specificity of claudin-5 expression were sufficient to distinguish between them. The differential diagnosis of mesothelioma should therefore include claudin-5 in a panel of immunohistochemical markers to distinguish mesothelioma from angiosarcoma.

Overexpressed GATA3 enhances the sensitivity of colorectal cancer cells to oxaliplatin through regulating MiR-29b

Background

GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3) and miR-29b are related to colorectal cancer (CRC). The current study explored the regulatory relationship between GATA3 and miR-29b, and the mechanism of the two in the drug resistance of CRC cells to oxaliplatin.

Method

Apoptosis of CRC cells induced by oxaliplatin at various doses was detected by flow cytometry. CRC cells were separately transfected with overexpression and knockdown of GATA3, miR-29b agomir and antagomir, and treated by oxaliplatin to detect the cell viability and apoptosis by performing Cell Couting Kit-8 (CCK-8) and flow cytometry. The expression levels of GATA3, caspase3 and cleaved caspase3 were determined by Western blot, and the expression of miR-29b was detected by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Animal experiments were performed to examine the changes of transplanted tumors in nude mouse xenograft studies and observed by in vivo imaging. TUNEL staining was performed to detect tumor cell apoptosis.

Result

Both GATA3 and miR-29b agomir inhibited the activity of the CRC cells, promoted apoptosis and Cleaved caspase3 expression, and reduced the resistance of the cells to chemotherapy drug oxaliplatin. Although GATA3 could up-regulate miR-29b expression, the tumor-suppressive effect of GATA3 was partially reversed by miR-29b antagomir. In vivo experiments showed that down-regulating the expression of GATA3 promoted the growth rate and volume of transplanted tumors, while overexpressing GATA3 had no significant effect on tumor growth. TUNEL staining results showed that knocking down or overexpression of GATA3 did not cause significant changes to apoptotic bodies of CRC cells, while oxaliplatin treatment increased the number of apoptotic bodies.

Conclusion

GATA3 inhibits the cell viability of CRC cells, promotes apoptosis, and reduces oxaliplatin resistance of CRC cells through regulating miR-29b.

Clinical significance of histologic subtyping of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is uncommon, but very aggressive tumor arising from the mesothelial cells of pleura, pericardium, peritoneum, and tunica vaginalis. Despite multimodality treatments 5-year survival is only 5% after the diagnosis. Histology and TNM staging system are still the best prognostic factors. Furthermore, histologic subtype of MM determines the clinical management of the patients. According to the 2015 WHO classification, MM is divided into diffuse, localized and well differentiated papillary mesothelioma. Major histologic subtypes of diffuse MM, namely epithelioid, biphasic and sarcomatoid, have different prognosis. However, in the last decade it has become evident that more detailed subclassification and histologic/cytological characterization of MM have prognostic and perhaps predictive implications. In this review, major histologic subtypes and cytological features of MM are presented and their relation with prognosis and predictive biomarkers is discussed.

Comprehensive Molecular and Pathologic Evaluation of Transitional Mesothelioma Assisted by Deep Learning Approach: A Multi-Institutional Study of the International Mesothelioma Panel from the MESOPATH Reference Center

INTRODUCTION

Histologic subtypes of malignant pleural mesothelioma are a major prognostic indicator and decision denominator for all therapeutic strategies. In an ambiguous case, a rare transitional mesothelioma (TM) pattern may be diagnosed by pathologists either as epithelioid mesothelioma (EM), biphasic mesothelioma (BM), or sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM). This study aimed to better characterize the TM subtype from a histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular standpoint. Deep learning of pathologic slides was applied to this cohort.

METHODS

A random selection of 49 representative digitalized sections from surgical biopsies of TM was reviewed by 16 panelists. We evaluated BAP1 expression and CDKN2A (p16) homozygous deletion. We conducted a comprehensive, integrated, transcriptomic analysis. An unsupervised deep learning algorithm was trained to classify tumors.

RESULTS

The 16 panelists recorded 784 diagnoses on the 49 cases. Even though a Kappa value of 0.42 is moderate, the presence of a TM component was diagnosed in 51%. In 49% of the histological evaluation, the reviewers classified the lesion as EM in 53%, SM in 33%, or BM in 14%. Median survival was 6.7 months. Loss of BAP1 observed in 44% was less frequent in TM than in EM and BM. p16 homozygous deletion was higher in TM (73%), followed by BM (63%) and SM (46%). RNA sequencing unsupervised clustering analysis revealed that TM grouped together and were closer to SM than to EM. Deep learning analysis achieved 94% accuracy for TM identification.

CONCLUSION

These results revealed that the TM pattern should be classified as non-EM or at minimum as a subgroup of the SM type.

Update on the pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that may be difficult to diagnose. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group has been writing guidelines for pathological diagnosis that are periodically updated. The guidelines are being updated based on published literature in the last 3 years, and experience of more than 20 leading international pathologists in the field who will be co-authors. Updates were discussed by attendees of the Pulmonary Pathology Society Biennial Meeting (Dubrovnik, Croatia, June 2019). Areas with significant advancements/changes include utilization of immunohistochemistry (establishing mesothelial lineage and benign versus malignant), prognosis and nuclear grading, biphasic malignant mesothelioma, transitional pattern, malignant mesothelioma in situ, and therapeutic/molecular targets.

Infarct-Like Spindle Cell Carcinoma of the Lung: Clinicopathologic, Immunohistochemical, and Molecular Analysis of 4 Cases

Pulmonary spindle cell carcinoma is a rare and aggressive malignancy that often mimics benign conditions. We report 4 cases that simulate a pulmonary infarction, 2 of which were misdiagnosed. Patients were 3 men and 1 woman, smokers, presenting chest pain. All cases appeared as pleural-based, solitary, and rounded nodules. Patients underwent wedge resections followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (3/4) but died of disease. At histology, lesions consisted of widely necrotic nodules surrounded by organizing fibrosis and pleuritis. Examination and immunostains with pan-cytokeratins and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) revealed atypical spindle cells encircling necrotic tissue and involving the vascular wall. Positive staining with PD-L1 was noted. Molecular analysis showed KRAS (2/4) and TP53 (1/4) mutations, whereas EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 alterations were not detected. Although in a limited series, these cases further evidence the treacherous appearance of spindle cell carcinomas and the need for careful attention when examining pulmonary infarcted tissue, thus requiring extensive sampling, meticulous examination of vascular structures, and immunostaining with cytokeratins.

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.

Mesothelioma: Scientific clues for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy

Mesothelioma affects mostly older individuals who have been occupationally exposed to asbestos. The global mesothelioma incidence and mortality rates are unknown, because data are not available from developing countries that continue to use large amounts of asbestos. The incidence rate of mesothelioma has decreased in Australia, the United States, and Western Europe, where the use of asbestos was banned or strictly regulated in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrating the value of these preventive measures. However, in these same countries, the overall number of deaths from mesothelioma has not decreased as the size of the population and the percentage of old people have increased. Moreover, hotspots of mesothelioma may occur when carcinogenic fibers that are present in the environment are disturbed as rural areas are being developed. Novel immunohistochemical and molecular markers have improved the accuracy of diagnosis; however, about 14% (high-resource countries) to 50% (developing countries) of mesothelioma diagnoses are incorrect, resulting in inadequate treatment and complicating epidemiological studies. The discovery that germline BRCA1-asssociated protein 1 (BAP1) mutations cause mesothelioma and other cancers (BAP1 cancer syndrome) elucidated some of the key pathogenic mechanisms, and treatments targeting these molecular mechanisms and/or modulating the immune response are being tested. The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma is controversial as it is difficult to predict who will benefit from aggressive management, even when local therapies are added to existing or novel systemic treatments. Treatment outcomes are improving, however, for peritoneal mesothelioma. Multidisciplinary international collaboration will be necessary to improve prevention, early detection, and treatment.

[Immunophenotyping of lung tumors : An update]

The WHO Classification of Lung Tumors (2015) established the use of immunohistochemical stainings for resection specimens, however, detailed recommendations had been missing. Now, an international expert panel has summarized key questions for daily routine practice and provided recommendations to assist the community in the appropriate use of immunohistochemistry in this context. This article provides an overview of the most important aspects.

ERS/EACTS statement on the management of malignant pleural effusions

Malignant pleural effusions (MPE) are a common pathology, treated by respiratory physicians and thoracic surgeons alike. In recent years, several well-designed randomized clinical trials have been published that have changed the landscape of MPE management. The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) established a multidisciplinary collaboration of clinicians with expertise in the management of MPE with the aim of producing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. Six areas of interest were identified, including the optimum management of symptomatic MPE, management of trapped lung in MPE, management of loculated MPE, prognostic factors in MPE, whether there is a role for oncological therapies prior to intervention for MPE and whether a histological diagnosis is always required in MPE. The literature revealed that talc pleurodesis and indwelling pleural catheters effectively manage the symptoms of MPE. There was limited evidence regarding the management of trapped lung or loculated MPE. The LENT score was identified as a validated tool for predicting survival in MPE, with Brims' prognostic score demonstrating utility in mesothelioma prognostication. There was no evidence to support the use of oncological therapies as an alternative to MPE drainage, and the literature supported the use of tissue biopsy as the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment planning.Management options for malignant pleural effusions have advanced over the past decade, with high-quality randomized trial evidence informing practice in many areas. However, uncertainties remain and further research is required http://ow.ly/rNt730jOxOS.

Best Practices Recommendations for Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry in Lung Cancer

Since the 2015 WHO classification was introduced into clinical practice, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has figured prominently in lung cancer diagnosis. In addition to distinction of small cell versus non-small cell carcinoma, patients' treatment of choice is directly linked to histologic subtypes of non-small cell carcinoma, which pertains to IHC results, particularly for poorly differentiated tumors. The use of IHC has improved diagnostic accuracy in the classification of lung carcinoma, but the interpretation of IHC results remains challenging in some instances. Also, pathologists must be aware of many interpretation pitfalls, and the use of IHC should be efficient to spare the tissue for molecular testing. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee received questions on practical application and interpretation of IHC in lung cancer diagnosis. After discussions in several International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee meetings, the issues and caveats were summarized in terms of 11 key questions covering common and important diagnostic situations in a daily clinical practice with some relevant challenging queries. The questions cover topics such as the best IHC markers for distinguishing NSCLC subtypes, differences in thyroid transcription factor 1 clones, and the utility of IHC in diagnosing uncommon subtypes of lung cancer and distinguishing primary from metastatic tumors. This article provides answers and explanations for the key questions about the use of IHC in diagnosis of lung carcinoma, representing viewpoints of experts in thoracic pathology that should assist the community in the appropriate use of IHC in diagnostic pathology.

Malignant mesothelioma: A histomorphological and immunohistochemical study of 24 cases from a tertiary care hospital in Southern India

BACKGROUND

Malignant mesotheliomas are histologically heterogeneous neoplasms. Definite diagnosis requires a varied panel of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers to differentiate these from histological mimics. Only a few case series have been reported in the Indian literature where mesotheliomas have been analyzed on routine histology and IHC.

AIM

To evaluate the histological features of malignant mesothelioma and to elucidate the best possible immunomarker combination useful in different scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 24 cases of malignant mesotheliomas of different sites encountered over a 6-year period were retrospectively analyzed with regard to their histomorphology and IHC findings.

RESULTS

The pleura was the most common site of involvement (16 cases) followed by peritoneum (5 cases) and pericardium (3 cases). Epithelioid mesothelioma was the most common histological type (15 cases, 62.5%) followed by sarcomatoid (5 cases, 20.84%), deciduoid (2 cases, 8.34%), and 1 case each of desmoplastic and biphasic mesothelioma. Among the mesothelial markers, WT1 was positive in 17 of 20 (85%) cases and calretinin was positive in 20 of 21 (95.23%) cases. D2-40 and CK5/6 were positive in all cases where they were studied. Adenocarcinoma markers TTF-1, napsin A, and CEA had very high negative predictive value in ruling out mesothelioma.

CONCLUSION

The differential diagnosis of mesotheliomas varies with histological type and tumor location. Judicious use of various combinations of IHC markers in different situation has been highlighted in this article.

ERS/EACTS statement on the management of malignant pleural effusions

Malignant pleural effusions (MPE) are a common pathology, treated by respiratory physicians and thoracic surgeons alike. In recent years, several well-designed randomised clinical trials have been published that have changed the landscape of MPE management. The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) established a multidisciplinary collaboration of clinicians with expertise in the management of MPE with the aim of producing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature.

Six areas of interest were identified, including the optimum management of symptomatic MPE, management of trapped lung in MPE, management of loculated MPE, prognostic factors in MPE, whether there is a role for oncological therapies prior to intervention for MPE and whether a histological diagnosis is always required in MPE.

The literature revealed that talc pleurodesis and indwelling pleural catheters effectively manage the symptoms of MPE. There was limited evidence regarding the management of trapped lung or loculated MPE. The LENT score was identified as a validated tool for predicting survival in MPE, with Brims' prognostic score demonstrating utility in mesothelioma prognostication. There was no evidence to support the use of oncological therapies as an alternative to MPE drainage, and the literature supported the use of tissue biopsy as the gold standard for diagnosis and treatment planning.

Progress in the Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in 2017

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an uncommon, almost universally fatal, asbestos-induced malignancy. New and effective strategies for diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment are urgently needed. Herein we review the advances in MPM achieved in 2017. Whereas recent epidemiological data demonstrated that the incidence of MPM-related death continued to increase in United States between 2009 and 2015, new insight into the molecular pathogenesis and the immunological tumor microenvironment of MPM, for example, regarding the role of BRCA1 associated protein 1 and the expression programmed death receptor ligand 1, are highlighting new potential therapeutic strategies. Furthermore, there continues to be an ever-expanding number of clinical studies investigating systemic therapies for MPM. These trials are primarily focused on immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with other immunotherapies and nonimmunotherapies. In addition, other promising targeted therapies, including pegylated adenosine deiminase (ADI-PEG20), which focuses on argininosuccinate synthase 1-deficient tumors, and tazemetostat, an enhancer of zeste 2 polycomb repressive complex 2 subunit inhibitor of BRCA1 associated protein 1 gene (BAP1)-deficient tumors, are currently being explored.

New Insights on Diagnostic Reproducibility of Biphasic Mesotheliomas: A Multi-Institutional Evaluation by the International Mesothelioma Panel From the MESOPATH Reference Center

INTRODUCTION

The 2015 WHO classification of tumors categorized malignant mesothelioma into epithelioid, biphasic (BMM), and sarcomatoid (SMM) for prognostic relevance and treatment decisions. The survival of BMM is suspected to correlate with the amount of the sarcomatoid component. The criteria for a sarcomatoid component and the interobserver variability between pathologists for identifying this component are not well described. In ambiguous cases, a "transitional" (TMM) subtype has been proposed but was not accepted as a specific subtype in the 2015 WHO classification. The aims of this study were to evaluate the interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of BMM, to determine the nature and the significance of TMM subtype, and to relate the percentage of sarcomatoid component with survival. The value of staining for BRCA-1-associated protein (BAP1) and CDKN2A(p16) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were also assessed with respect to each of the tumoral components.

METHODS

The study was conducted by the International Mesothelioma Panel supported by the French National Cancer Institute, the network of rare cancer (EURACAN) and in collaboration with the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The patient cases include a random group of 42 surgical biopsy samples diagnosed as BMM with evaluation of SMM component by the French Panel of MESOPATH experts was selected from the total series of 971 BMM cases collected from 1998 to 2016. Fourteen international pathologists with expertise in mesothelioma reviewed digitally scanned slides (hematoxylin and eosin - stained and pan-cytokeratin) without knowledge of prior diagnosis or outcome. Cases with at least 7 of 14 pathologists recognizing TMM features were selected as a TMM group. Demographic, clinical, histopathologic, treatment, and follow-up data were retrieved from the MESOBANK database. BAP1 (clone C-4) loss and CDKN2A(p16) homozygous deletion (HD) were assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and FISH, respectively. Kappa statistics were applied for interobserver agreement and multivariate analysis with Cox regression adjusted for age and gender was performed for survival analysis.

RESULTS

The 14 panelists recorded a total of 544 diagnoses. The interobserver correlation was moderate (weighted Kappa = 0.45). Of the cases originally classified as BMM by MESOPATH, the reviewers agreed in 71% of cases (385 of 544 opinions), with cases classified as pure epithelioid in 17% (93 of 544), and pure sarcomatoid in 12% (66 of 544 opinions). Diagnosis of BMM was made on morphology or IHC alone in 23% of the cases and with additional assessment of IHC in 77% (402 of 544). The median overall survival (OS) of the 42 BMM cases was 8 months. The OS for BMM was significantly different from SMM and epithelioid malignant mesothelioma (p < 0.0001). In BMM, a sarcomatoid component of less than 80% correlated with a better survival (p = 0.02). There was a significant difference in survival between BMM with TMM showing a median survival at 6 months compared to 12 months for those without TMM (p < 0.0001). BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 42) of the total cases and in both components in 26%. We also compared the TMM group to that of more aggressive patterns of epithelioid subtypes of mesothelioma (solid and pleomorphic of our large MESOPATH cohort). The curve of transitional type was persistently close to the OS curve of the sarcomatoid component. The group of sarcomatoid, transitional, and pleomorphic mesothelioma were very close to each other. We then considered the contribution of BAP1 immunostaining and loss of CDKN2A(p16) by FISH. BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 41) of the total cases and in both component in 27% of the cases (11 of 41). There was no significant difference in BAP1 loss between the TMM and non-TMM groups. HD CDKN2A(p16) was detected in 74% of the total cases with no significant difference between the TMM and non-TMM groups. In multivariate analysis, TMM morphology was an indicator of poor prognosis with a hazard ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.6 - 8.0; and p = 0.003 even when compared to the presence of HD CDKN2A(p16) on sarcomatoid component (hazard ratio = 4.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 - 16.3, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The interobserver concordance among the international mesothelioma and French mesothelioma panel suggests clinical utility for an updated definition of biphasic mesothelioma that allows better stratification of patients into risk groups for treatment decisions, systemic anticancer therapy, or selection for surgery or palliation. We also have shown the usefulness of FISH detection of CDKN2A(p16) HD compared to BAP1 loss on the spindle cell component for the separation in ambiguous cases between benign florid stromal reaction from true sarcomatoid component of biphasic mesothelioma. Taken together our results further validate the concept of transitional pattern as a poor prognostic indicator.