Immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma: trends in Australia and a literature review

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).

A Role for PET/CT in response assessment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare type of cancer, whose incidence, however, is increasing and will presumably continue to rise in the coming years. Key features of this disease comprise its mantle-shaped, pleura-associated, often multifocal growth, which cause diagnostic challenges. A growing number of mesotheliomas are being treated with novel immunotherapies for which no image derived general response criteria have been established. However, recent studies indicate that FDG-PET/CT could be superior for response assessment compared to CT-based criteria. This article aims at providing an overview of response assessment criteria dedicated to malignant pleural mesothelioma, such as mRECIST, iRECIST, and PERCIST. In addition, the potential future role of PET/CT in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma will also be discussed.

CDKN2A and MTAP Are Useful Biomarkers Detectable by Droplet Digital PCR in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Potential Alternative Method in Diagnosis Compared to Fluorescence In Situ Hybridisation

Background

The diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) can be difficult, in part due to the difficulty in distinguishing between MPM and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH). The tumor suppressor gene, CDKN2A, is frequently silenced by epigenetic mechanisms in many cancers; in the case of MPM it is mostly silenced via genomic deletion. Co-deletion of the CDKN2A and methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) genes has been researched extensively and discovered to be a highly specific characteristic of MPM. Most studies have used FISH to detect the deletion of CDKN2A and IHC for MTAP as a surrogate for this. In this study, we aim to investigate and validate droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) as an emerging alternative and efficient testing method in diagnosing MPM, by particularly emphasizing on the loss of MTAP and CDKN2A.

Methods

This study included 75 formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) MPM tissue, and 12 normal pleural tissue and 10 RMH as control. Additionally, primary MPM cell lines and normal pleural samples were used as biomarker detection controls, as established in our previous publication. All FFPE specimens were processed to isolate the DNA, that was subsequently used for ddPCR detection of CDKN2A and MTAP. FFPE samples were also analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for CDKN2A and MTAP deletion, and for MTAP IHC expression. Concordance of IHC and ddPCR with FISH were studied in these samples.

Results

95% and 82% of cases showed co-deletion of both MTAP and CDKN2A when determined by FISH and ddPCR respectively. ddPCR has a sensitivity of 72% and specificity of 100% in detecting CDKN2A homozygous loss in MPM. ddPCR also has a concordance rate of 92% with FISH in detecting homozygous loss of CDKN2A. MTAP IHC was 68% sensitive and 100% specific for detecting CDKN2A homozygous loss in MPM when these losses were determined by ddPCR.

Conclusion

Our study confirms that MTAP is often co-deleted with CDKN2A in MPM. Our in-house designed ddPCR assays for MTAP and CDKN2A are useful in differentiating MPM from RMH, and is highly concordant with FISH that is currently used in diagnosing MPM. ddPCR detection of these genetic losses can potentially be utilized as an alternative method in the diagnosis of MPM and for the future development of a less-invasive MPM-specific detection technique on MPM tumor tissue DNA.

Genomic Deletion of BAP1 and CDKN2A Are Useful Markers for Quality Control of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) Primary Cultures

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a deadly cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure and that has limited treatment options. The current standard of MPM diagnosis requires the testing of multiple immunohistochemical (IHC) markers on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue to differentiate MPM from other lung malignancies. To date, no single biomarker exists for definitive diagnosis of MPM due to the lack of specificity and sensitivity; therefore, there is ongoing research and development in order to identify alternative biomarkers for this purpose. In this study, we utilized primary MPM cell lines and tested the expression of clinically used biomarker panels, including CK8/18, Calretinin, CK 5/6, CD141, HBME-1, WT-1, D2-40, EMA, CEA, TAG72, BG8, CD15, TTF-1, BAP1, and Ber-Ep4. The genomic alteration of CDNK2A and BAP1 is common in MPM and has potential diagnostic value. Changes in CDKN2A and BAP1 genomic expression were confirmed in MPM samples in the current study using Fluorescence In situ Hybridization (FISH) analysis or copy number variation (CNV) analysis with digital droplet PCR (ddPCR). To determine whether MPM tissue and cell lines were comparable in terms of molecular alterations, IHC marker expression was analyzed in both sample types. The percentage of MPM biomarker levels showed variation between original tissue and matched cells established in culture. Genomic deletions of BAP1 and CDKN2A, however, showed consistent levels between the two. The data from this study suggest that genomic deletion analysis may provide more accurate biomarker options for MPM diagnosis.

Management of malignant pleural mesothelioma - part 3 : Data from the Austrian Mesothelioma Interest Group (AMIG) database

Background

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare but aggressive tumor originating from the pleural cavity with a strong link to previous asbestos exposure. In order to determine the demographics, diagnostics, therapeutic strategies, and prognosis of MPM patients in Austria, the Austrian Mesothelioma Interest Group (AMIG) was founded in 2011. In this report the data from the AMIG MPM database collected to date are reported.

Methods

A prospective observational registry was initiated, including patients with histologically verified MPM diagnosed and treated at specialized centers in Austria. Patient inclusion started in January 2011 and follow-up was completed until September 2015.

Results

A total number of 210 patients were included. There were 167 male and 43 female patients with a mean age of 67.0 years (SD ± 11.3) at the time of diagnosis. Asbestos exposure was confirmed in 109 (69.4 %) patients. The histological subtype was epithelioid in 141 (67.2 %), sarcomatoid in 16 (7.6 %), biphasic in 28 (13.3 %), and MPM not otherwise specified in 25 (11.9 %) patients. Of the patients, 30 (14.3 %) received best supportive care (BSC) only, 71 (33.8 %) chemotherapy (CHT) alone, four (1.9 %) radiotherapy (RT) alone, 23 (11.9 %) CHT/RT, two (0.9 %) surgery alone, and 76 (36.2 %) curative surgery within a multimodality treatment (MMT), which was more frequently performed for patients younger than 65 years and with early-stage disease (I + II). Median overall survival (OS) was 19.1 months (95 % CI 14.7–23.5). The 1‑, 3‑, and 5‑year OS rates were 66 %, 30 %, and 23 %, respectively, and OS was significantly better in patients undergoing surgery within MMT (5-year survival 5 % vs. 40 %, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Patients with earlier disease stages, younger age, good performance status, and epithelioid histology were more likely to undergo MMT including surgery, which resulted in a more favorable outcome.

Pathology reporting of malignant pleural mesothelioma first diagnosis: A population-based approach

Accurate pathologic diagnosis and reporting in malignant pleural mesothelioma are essential for clinical care, and cancer registration. Practical guidelines for pathologists are provided in publications and textbooks but it is unclear how these recommendations are applied in routine practice. We investigated the characteristics of pathology reports, and the extent to which they meet guideline standards. We reviewed 819 pathology reports relating to a first diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Data sources were a regional section of the Italian network of the Mesothelioma Registry (2001-2014) and a pathology archive (1990-2000). We evaluated tumor characteristics, the diagnosis field including terminology and immunohistochemistry (IHC) workup, and report completeness (the proportion of items recorded). We investigated also two IHC panels identified by the most used markers in current practical guidelines, one best suited for epithelioid mesotheliomas (combinations of at least 2 positive and at least 2 negative mesothelioma markers) and the other best suited for sarcomatoid mesotheliomas (positive mesothelioma markers plus cytokeratins). Reports (753 histology, 66 cytology, IHC-confirmed 86%) were 74% complete and always narrative. Missing data were related to clinical history (76%), tumor laterality (61%), specimen size (38%), and histological subtype (23%). The proportion of cases with IHC was higher for epithelioid (90%) than sarcomatoid mesothelioma (87%). Compliance to IHC recommendations was higher for epithelioid (59%) than sarcomatoid mesothelioma (11%). The mean number of stains was significantly higher for sarcomatoid than epithelioid mesothelioma (p<0.000; Kruskal-Wallis test). Our findings show that although guidelines are designed to improve actual reporting practices, there is ample room for improvement in their application to standardize the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Synoptic pathology reporting needs to be implemented to better utilize pathology information.