New developments in mesothelial pathology

Mesothelioma: morphologic and immunohistochemical findings

This paper reviews some basic and some new concepts in the diagnosis of mesothelioma. The term "malignant mesothelioma" is no longer recommended; rather, any tumor labeled "mesothelioma" is presumed to be malignant. Clinical and radiologic information is very useful in the diagnosis of mesothelioma; in particular, nodular pleural thickening on CT is usually a marker of malignancy. The literature on markers that separate mesotheliomas from metastatic carcinomas has become very complex and frequently misleading, with many recommended markers actually demonstrating poor specificity. However, newer data show that a combination of HEG1 (clone SKM9-2) and claudin‑4 staining provides extremely high accuracy in separating epithelioid mesotheliomas from non-small-cell lung carcinomas with just two immunostains. This combination works at other sites as well, but caution should be used when high-grade serous carcinoma is in the differential, because all "mesothelioma" markers can also stain high-grade serous carcinomas. There are, unfortunately, no sensitive or specific markers for sarcomatoid mesotheliomas. A variety of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) markers are useful in separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations; immunohistochemal staining for BAP1, MTAP (or CDKN2A FISH), and NF2/Merlin (or NF2 FISH) will enable the diagnosis of most mesotheliomas. Mesothelioma in situ is now recognized as either a single layer of bland cuboidal mesothelial cells that have lost BAP1, and sometimes MTAP, on immunohistochemical staining, or a process that is morphologically identical to a well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor that has lost BAP1/MTAP. Mesothelioma in situ probably always progresses to invasive mesothelioma, but this process is often quite slow.

The role of pathologists in the diagnosis of occupational lung diseases: an expert opinion of the European Society of Pathology Pulmonary Pathology Working Group

Occupational lung/thoracic diseases are a major global public health issue. They comprise a diverse spectrum of health conditions with complex pathology, most of which arise following chronic heavy workplace exposures to various mineral dusts, metal fumes, or following inhaled organic particulate reactions. Many occupational lung diseases could become irreversible; thus accurate diagnosis is mandatory to minimize dust exposure and consequently reduce damage to the respiratory system. Lung biopsy is usually required when exposure history is inconsistent with imaging, in case of unusual or new exposures, in case of unexpected malignancy, and in cases in which there are claims for personal injury and legal compensation. In this paper, we provide an overview of the most frequent occupational lung diseases with a focus on pathological diagnosis. This is a paper that summarizes the expert opinion from a group of European pathologists, together with contributions from other specialists who are crucial for the diagnosis and management of these diseases. Indeed, tight collaboration of all specialists involved in the workup is mandatory as many occupational lung diseases are misdiagnosed or go unrecognized. This document provides a guide for pathologists in practice to facilitate the accurate diagnosis of occupational lung disease. The review article reports relevant topics discussed during an educational course held by expert pathologists, active members of the Pulmonary Pathology Working Group of the European Society of Pathology. The course was endorsed by the University of Padova as a "winter school" (selected project in the call for "Shaping a World-class University" 2022).

BAP1 Loss, Nuclear Grading, and Nonepithelioid Features in the Diagnosis of Mesothelioma in Italy: Nevermore without the Pathology Report

The pathologic diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma is generally based on international guidelines, but no compulsory points based on different drugs approvals in different European countries are required to be reported. According to the last (2021) edition of the World Health Organization classification of pleural tumors, the nuclear grade of epithelioid-type mesothelioma should be always inserted in the pathologic report, while the presence of BRCA-associated protein-1 (BAP1) (clone C4) loss and a statement on the presence of the sarcomatoid/nonepithelioid component are fundamental for both a screening of patients with suspected BAP1 tumor predisposition syndrome and the eligibility to perform first-line immunotherapy at least in some countries. Several Italian experts on pleural mesothelioma who are deeply involved in national scientific societies or dedicated working groups supported by patient associations agreed that the pathology report of mesothelioma of the pleura should always include the nuclear grade in the epithelioid histology, which is an overt statement on the presence of sarcomatoid components (at least 1%, in agreement with the last classification of pleural mesothelioma) and the presence of BAP1 loss (BAP1-deficient mesothelioma) or not (BAP1-retained mesothelioma) in order to screen patients possibly harboring BAP1 tumor predisposition syndrome. This review aims to summarize the most recent data on these three important elements to provide evidence regarding the possible precision needs for mesothelioma.

Uroplakin-IIIb as a novel immunohistochemical marker for mesothelioma

Distinguishing mesothelioma from non-small cell lung carcinoma often requires a battery of immunohistochemical stains, as many traditional markers used in mesothelioma lack sufficient specificity to allow them to be used alone. A recent large-scale TMA screen identified uroplakin-IIIb (UpIIIb; clone MSVA-736M) as a potentially specific marker for mesothelioma. We examined the performance of this antibody using tissue microarrays containing a panel of 48 epithelioid mesotheliomas, 26 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, and 144 non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs). Here we show that UpIIIb has good sensitivity (37/47 evaluable cases positive, 79%) and excellent specificity for distinguishing epithelioid mesothelioma from NSCLC (0/140 evaluable cases positive). UPIIIb sensitivity for epithelioid mesotheliomas was only slightly inferior to the established highly specific mesothelioma marker HEG1 (41/46 evaluable cases positive on the same TMA, 89%). However, UpIIIb did not stain any sarcomatoid mesotheliomas (0/24 evaluable cases positive). We also found that UpIIIb stained a proportion of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas, a perennial diagnostic confounder in the context of mesotheliomas. Taken together, our data suggest that UpIIIb can be used as a highly specific and sensitive mesothelial marker when the diagnostic question is epithelioid mesothelioma versus NSCLC; in particular, UpIIIb staining will pick up some number of epithelioid mesotheliomas that are HEG1 negative. Since UpIIIb is known to stain some proportion of urothelial carcinomas as well as gynecologic and a few pancreatic tumors, it should be used with caution in the peritoneal cavity or when the differential diagnosis includes carcinomas from these locations.