A comparative immunohistochemical study of malignant mesothelioma and renal cell carcinoma: the diagnostic utility of Leu-M1, Ber EP4, Tamm-Horsfall protein and thrombomodulin

Value of PAX8, PAX2, napsin A, carbonic anhydrase IX, and claudin-4 immunostaining in distinguishing pleural epithelioid mesothelioma from metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Both mesotheliomas and renal cell carcinomas can present a wide variety of cytomorphologic features and histologic patterns. Because of this, renal cell carcinomas metastatic to the pleura and lung can be confused with mesotheliomas. Recently, a variety of positive carcinoma markers, including kidney-associated markers, have become available. The aim of this study is to investigate the value of some of these markers, specifically PAX8, PAX2, napsin A, carbonic anhydrase IX, and claudin-4, for assisting in distinguishing pleural epithelioid mesotheliomas from metastatic renal cell carcinomas. To do so, a total of 40 pleural epithelioid mesotheliomas and 55 renal cell carcinomas (33 clear cell, 10 papillary, and 12 chromophobe) were investigated. In all, 91% of the renal cell carcinomas expressed claudin-4, 89% PAX8, 60% PAX2, 71% carbonic anhydrase IX, and 29% napsin A. All of the mesotheliomas were positive for carbonic anhydrase IX and were negative for all of the other markers. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that claudin-4 and PAX8 have a higher sensitivity and specificity for assisting in discriminating between pleural epithelioid mesotheliomas and renal cell carcinomas when compared with all of the other positive carcinoma markers that are, at present, recommended to be included in the immunohistochemical panels used in this differential diagnosis. Even though PAX2 and napsin A are highly specific, because of their low sensitivity, they have only a limited value. Carbonic anhydrase IX is not useful.

Diagnosis of epithelial mesothelioma using tree-based regression analysis and a minimal panel of antibodies

AIMS

Immunohistochemistry with panels of antibodies is a standard procedure to distinguish between malignant mesothelioma and metastatic adenocarcinoma. Most studies assess only the sensitivity and specificity for single antibodies, even when the paper concludes by recommending an antibody panel. It was the aim of this study to use a novel statistical approach to identify a minimal panel of antibodies, which would make this distinction in the majority of cases.

METHODS

Two hundred consecutive cases of pleural malignancy (173 pleural mesotheliomas of epithelial type and 27 cases of secondary adenocarcinoma) were investigated using a standard panel of 12 antibodies (CAM5.2, CK5/6, calretinin, HBME-1, thrombomodulin, WT-1, EMA, CEA, CD15, B72.3, BG8, and TTF-1). Regression and classification tree-based methods were applied to select the best combination of markers. The modelling procedures used employ successive, hierarchical predictions computed for individual cases to sort them into homogeneous classes.

RESULTS

Labelling for calretinin and lack of labelling for BG8 were sufficient for definite correlation with a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. CD15 provided further differentiating information in some cases.

CONCLUSION

A panel of three antibodies was sufficient in most cases to diagnose, or to exclude, epithelial mesothelioma. Calretinin exhibits the strongest correlative power of the antibodies tested.

Problems in mesothelioma diagnosis

Many centres are now seeing increasing numbers of patients with malignant mesothelioma. This presents pathologists involved in making the diagnosis with a number of problems, which can be divided into those encountered in making the distinction between mesothelioma and benign changes and those experienced in separating mesotheliomas from other types of epithelial and connective tissue tumours. Immunohistochemistry plays a major role in helping to make the diagnosis, but it should be interpreted with due regard to the clinical setting and radiological features, and with a knowledge of the wide morphological variations seen in mesothelioma. This review identifies some of these problems and addresses the uses and limitations of immunohistochemistry in different situations. It includes a discussion of some of the less common variants of mesothelioma and other pleural-based tumours that enter into the differential diagnosis.

Application of immunohistochemistry to gynecologic pathology

CONTEXT

A large variety of tumors and lesions arise in the female genital tract. Although the majority of these can be correctly recognized on routine hematoxylin-eosin-stained slides, occasional cases present a diagnostic challenge. Immunohistochemical stains are extremely useful in resolving many of these problematic cases. As the knowledge in this area is constantly expanding, it is useful to have this updated information in a review form for easy access.

OBJECTIVE

To present our current knowledge of immunohistochemistry of the lesions of the female genital tract in a readily accessible form.

DATA SOURCES

The review is based on previously published articles on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunohistochemical stains help in reaching a conclusive diagnosis in a variety of problematic lesions seen in gynecologic pathology. As in any other system, immunohistochemical findings need to be interpreted in light of the clinical history and morphologic findings.

Expression of renal cell carcinoma-associated markers erythropoietin, CD10, and renal cell carcinoma marker in diffuse malignant mesothelioma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma

CONTEXT

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) involving the thorax can be difficult to distinguish from diffuse malignant mesothelioma (DMM) using traditional morphologic approaches. Standard panels of immunohistochemical markers are of limited benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate several antibodies to renal cell carcinoma-associated proteins for differentiating MRCC from DMM.

DESIGN

One hundred DMMs and 20 MRCCs were evaluated for immunoexpression of erythropoietin. The same cases and an additional 45 DMMs were evaluated for CD10 and renal cell carcinoma marker (RCCMa) immunoreactivity.

RESULTS

Erythropoietin was expressed in 100% of DMMs and MRCCs. Staining for CD10 was observed in 54% of DMMs and 100% of MRCCs. RCCMa stained 26% of DMMs and 55% of MRCCs. Although erythropoietin staining was similarly strong and diffuse in both DMM and MRC, patterns of staining for RCCMa and CD10 differed between MRCC and DMM. Immunoreactivity was strong and diffuse for both RCCMa and CD10 in most MRCCs. Of CD10-positive DMMs, nearly half showed staining in less than 50% of tumor cells and about one fourth of positive cases exhibited only weak to moderately intense staining. Only half of RCCMa-positive DMMs showed staining in more than 49% of tumor cells and staining was only weak to moderately intense in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the overlap in the expression of renal cell carcinoma markers in MRCC and DMM, results with these markers must be interpreted cautiously and should be used in conjunction with mesothelium-associated markers. Differences in expression may potentially help distinguish MRCC from DMM inasmuch as strong and diffuse expression of RCCMa and CD10 supports a diagnosis of MRCC over DMM.

Immunohistochemical Diagnosis of Epithelioid Mesothelioma: An Update

Objective.—Several new immunohistochemical markers that can assist in the diagnosis of mesotheliomas have been recognized recently. This article reviews the current information available on these markers and also provides a practical approach to the immunohistochemical diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas.

Data Sources.—Current literature concerning immunohistochemical markers for epithelioid mesotheliomas was collected and reviewed.

Study Selection.—Literature emphasizing immunohistochemical diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas was selected.

Data Extraction.—Data deemed helpful to the general surgical pathologist for the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma were included in this review.

Data Synthesis.—Markers identified as potentially useful in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma include positive markers (namely, calretinin, keratin 5/6, D2-40, podoplanin, mesothelin, and Wilms tumor 1 protein [WT1]) and negative markers (namely, carcinoembryonic antigen, MOC-31, B72.3, and Ber-EP4). Thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1) can assist in determining the lung origin of a carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma marker (RCC Ma) may help establish its renal origin.

Conclusions.—D2-40 and podoplanin are the 2 most recently recognized markers that have been found to be useful in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas. Since D2-40 and podoplanin appear to be highly sensitive and specific for epithelioid mesotheliomas, either may be considered for inclusion in the battery of antibodies currently recommended for distinguishing epithelioid mesotheliomas from metastatic carcinomas. However, it should be kept in mind that their utility has not yet been fully determined in routine diagnostic work.

The diagnostic utility of MOC31, BerEP4, RCC marker and CD10 in the classification of renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma: an immunohistochemical analysis of 328 cases

AIMS

To demonstrate the diagnostic utility of MOC31, BerEP4, renal cell carcinoma marker (RCC Ma) and CD10 in the classification of RCC and renal oncocytoma, based upon a comprehensive immunohistochemical analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Immunohistochemistry was performed on 328 samples consisting of 256 clear cell/conventional, 27 papillary, 28 chromophobe, five collecting duct, five unclassified RCCs and seven renal oncocytomas using antibodies MOC31, BerEP4 and antibodies against cytokeratins (KL-1, CAM5.2, 34betaE12, cytokeratin 7), RCC Ma, epithelial membrane antigen, E-cadherin, CD10, CD15 and vimentin. Multivariate analysis showed that MOC31, BerEP4, RCC Ma and CD10 have discriminatory value. MOC31 and BerEP4 chiefly labelled distal tubules of normal kidney while RCC Ma and CD10 labelled the proximal tubules. Twenty-three chromophobe RCCs (82%) were reactive for MOC31, while only four clear cell RCCs and three papillary RCCs were positive for this marker. Clear cell RCCs were characterized by a high positive rate for CD10 (82%) and a low positive rate for BerEP4 (27%). Papillary RCCs frequently coexpressed RCC Ma and BerEP4 (51%). All renal oncocytomas were negative for MOC31 and CD10.

CONCLUSIONS

MOC31 has diagnostic merit in discerning chromophobe RCC. The CD10+/BerEP4- profile and RCC Ma+/BerEP4+ profile achieve moderate sensitivity and good specificity for clear cell RCC and papillary RCC, respectively. The non-reactivity for both MOC31 and CD10 is helpful in distinguishing renal oncocytoma from RCC. When properly selected, antibodies have immunohistochemical diagnostic utility for the classification of renal cortical epithelial tumours.

Evaluation of anti-thrombomodulin antibody as a tumor marker for vascular neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Various endothelial markers are available for the evaluation of vascular tumors and malformations, including anti CD34, anti-CD31, von Willebrand factor (vWF), and anti-thrombomodulin (anti-TM) antibodies. All have their limitations, and we sought to compare the utility of anti-TM antibody as a marker for several types of vascular neoplasms vs. previously established endothelial markers.

METHODS

We examined immunostaining profiles of 30 capillary hemangiomas, 10 pyogenic granulomas, five tufted angiomas, 17 Kaposi's sarcomas, and nine angiosarcomas. Immunostains for TM, CD34, and vWF were carried out using a labeled streptavidin-biotin peroxidase detection system.

RESULTS

Anti-TM antibody showed moderately intense immunostaining in 89% of benign and malignant vascular neoplasms. Anti-CD34 antibody showed moderate to diffuse immunostaining in 98% of vascular neoplasms, and vWF showed weak focal staining in 84% of all vascular neoplasms examined.

CONCLUSION

Anti-TM antibody proved to be a sensitive marker for both benign and malignant vascular neoplasms. While not as sensitive as anti-CD34, it may have some advantages in specificity that would make it a more reliable vascular tumor marker in certain situations.

The diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry in distinguishing between mesothelioma and renal cell carcinoma: A comparative study

Both mesotheliomas and renal cell carcinomas can present a wide variety of morphological patterns. Because of this, renal cell carcinomas that metastasize to the pleura and lung may be confused with mesotheliomas. The aim of the present study was to compare the value of the various immunohistochemical markers currently available for the diagnosis of mesothelioma and renal cell carcinoma. A total of 48 mesotheliomas (40 epithelioid, 8 sarcomatoid), and 48 renal cell carcinomas (24 conventional, 12 chromophobe, 8 papillary, 4 sarcomatoid) were investigated for the expression of the following markers: calretinin, mesothelin, cytokeratin 5/6, WT1, thrombomodulin (TM), N-cadherin, CD15 (leu-M1), MOC-31, Ber-EP4, BG-8 (Lewis(y)), CD10, renal cell carcinoma marker (RCC Ma), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and B72.3. All (100%) of the epithelioid mesotheliomas reacted for calretinin, mesothelin, and cytokeratin 5/6; 93% for WT1; 78% for TM; 75% for N-cadherin, 48% for CD10, 15% for Ber-EP4, 8% for MOC-31, 8% for RCC Ma, 5% for BG-8, and none for CEA, B72.3, or CD15. Of the sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, 88% expressed calretinin, 75% N-cadherin, 38% CD10, and 13% each expressed cytokeratin 5/6, WT1, and TM. All of the remaining markers were negative. Among the RCCs, 81% expressed CD10, 75% N-cadherin, 63% CD15, 50% RCC Ma, 50% MOC-31, 42% Ber-EP4, 8% BG-8, and 2% TM. The remaining markers were negative. The results indicate that calretinin, mesothelin, and cytokeratin 5/6 are the best positive mesothelioma markers for differentiating epithelioid mesotheliomas from renal cell carcinomas. The best discriminators among the antibodies considered negative markers for mesothelioma are CD15, MOC-31, and RCC Ma. An accurate differential diagnosis can be reached with the use of any 2 of the 3 recommended positive markers, which should be selected based on availability and on which ones yield the best staining results in a given laboratory. One of the recommended negative markers may be added to the panel if deemed necessary. If confirmation of renal origin is needed, RCC Ma could be useful. Calretinin is the only marker that appears to have any utility in distinguishing between sarcomatoid mesotheliomas and sarcomatoid renal cell carcinomas.

‘Pseudomesotheliomatous’ carcinomas of the pleura: a 10-year analysis of cases from the Environmental Lung Disease Research Group, Cardiff

AIMS

To undertake a clinicopathological study of diffuse serosal neoplasms of epithelial histogenesis which clinically and pathologically mimic malignant pleural mesothelioma.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Over a 10-year (1990-2000) study period 53 carcinomas mimicking diffuse pleural mesothelioma ('pseudomesotheliomatous' carcinoma) were identified. The study group comprised 50 men and three females, age range 33-77 (median 68) years. In 46 (87%) cases there was a history of smoking and in 40 (76%) cases a history of asbestos exposure. Histologically the pleural 'pseudomesotheliomatous' carcinomas could be divided into two broad groups: primary pulmonary carcinomas with florid pleurotropic growth (n = 47), of which 34 (70%) were adenocarcinomas; and diffuse carcinomatous involvement of the pleura by metastatic tumour (n = 6). This latter group comprised two transitional cell carcinomas of bladder, one renal (clear) cell carcinoma, one ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma, one prostatic adenocarcinoma and one squamous cell carcinoma of parotid gland origin. Follow-up data were available in 35 cases. Regardless of tumour type, survival was poor (median 8 months) and comparable to diffuse pleural mesothelioma.

CONCLUSIONS

Pleural 'pseudomesotheliomatous' carcinomas are uncommon (comprising 6% of referrals), pathologically heterogeneous tumours with poor prognosis. Tissue diagnosis should be obtained in all cases of suspected diffuse pleural neoplasia. By light microscopy and immunophenotype many of the tumours mimicked malignant mesothelioma. In particular, an awareness that all neoplasms exhibiting squamous differentiation may express cytokeratin 5/6 and thrombomodulin is important to prevent misinterpretation. In this respect, calretinin is regarded as the most specific and sensitive mesothelial marker. Misdiagnosis may have medico-legal implications in asbestos-related compensation claims.

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

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

The value of 'mesothelium-associated' antibodies in distinguishing between metastatic renal cell carcinomas and mesotheliomas

AIMS

Despite increasing usage of mesothelium-associated antibodies in diagnosis, a meta-analysis of studies analysing these antibodies in relation to distinguishing mesothelioma from renal cell carcinoma shows a paucity of published data. Given the clinical importance of elucidating this differential diagnosis, we compared the phenotypes of these two tumours using a panel of antibodies comprising recently described 'mesothelium-associated' antibodies and the more established 'epithelium-associated' antibodies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We applied an antibody panel comprising calretinin, cytokeratin (CK)5/6, thrombomodulin, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), BerEP4 and BCA225 to 37 cases of pleural mesotheliomas and 40 cases of renal cell carcinoma (27 primary tumours and 13 metastatic to the pleura). All mesotheliomas were either purely epithelioid or of mixed type. Cases of renal cell carcinoma were graded and classified as to cell type and architecture. For mesotheliomas, 0% stained for CEA, 16% for BerEP4, 83% for BCA225, 78% for CK5/6, 86% for thrombomodulin and 97% showed nuclear staining for calretinin. For renal cell carcinomas, 0% stained for CEA, 50% for BerEP4, 88% for BCA225, 5% for CK5/6, 32% for thrombomodulin and 10% showed nuclear staining for calretinin.

CONCLUSION

Calretinin, CK5/6 and BerEP4 appear the most useful antibodies in helping to distinguish between renal cell carcinomas and mesotheliomas, although BerEP4 was not particularly sensitive for renal cell carcinomas. Thrombomodulin was not as specific as the other 'mesothelium-associated' antibodies in this study, reflecting how staining for mesothelium-associated antibodies varies in carcinomas from different primary sites, and such variations should be taken into account when assessing the differential diagnosis of mesothelioma. In cases where doubt remains over distinguishing metastatic renal cell carcinoma from mesothelioma, data from such a panel should be viewed with caution and assessed in association with clinical, imaging and morphological features.

Immunohistochemical diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas: a critical review of old markers, new markers

Numerous new immunohistochemical markers that can be used in the diagnosis of mesothelioma have recently become available. As a result, new panels of antibodies that could be useful for distinguishing between epithelioid mesotheliomas and adenocarcinomas have been proposed. However, great differences of opinion exist regarding the individual value of some of these markers, especially when compared with those whose value has already been established. This article provides a critical review of the currently available information on those markers that could be useful in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas or whose utility remains controversial. A practical approach to the diagnosis of these tumors is also provided.

Localized malignant mesothelioma of the pleura

We describe a case of malignant pleural mesothelioma appearing as a solitary pleural tumor in a 56-year-old Japanese man with no history of exposure to asbestos. A chest radiograph revealed an isolated extrapulmonary mass in the left hemithorax. The patient underwent tumor resection, but the tumor later recurred on the contralateral pleura. The patient developed cerebral metastases and died 16 months after the initial surgery. The resected tumor was sessile with broad-based pleural attachment. Microscopically, the tumor was composed of interlacing fascicles of plump spindle cells intermixed with few polygonal cells. Most of the tumor cells showed positive immunoreactivity for cytokeratins (AE1 and AE3) and vimentin. Many of the tumor cells were positive for epithelial membrane antigen, and a few were positive for desmin. In contrast, the tumor cells were consistently negative for carcinoembryonic antigen, epithelial antigen BerEP4, calretinin, S-100 protein, neuron-specific enolase, muscle actin antigen HHF35, alpha-smooth muscle actin antigen and CD34. Ultrastructurally, the tumor cells had diffusely distributed cytoplasmic intermediate filaments, desmosome-like junctions, and a few microvilli. Some tumor cells contained cytoplasmic tonofilaments. Immunohistochemical and ultrastructural findings supported the mesothelial nature of the tumor, and led us to diagnose this tumor as a sarcomatoid localized malignant mesothelioma.

Unilocular retroperitoneal cyst of mesothelial origin presenting as a renal mass

We report the first 2 cases, to our knowledge, of retroperitoneal cysts with features of mesothelial differentiation that clinically mimic renal masses. The first lesion occurred in a 71-year-old man who presented with flank pain. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies showed a unilocular cystic structure arising from the upper pole of the left kidney. The second lesion was in a 44-year-old woman who presented with left flank pain. Imaging studies revealed an 8-cm hemorrhagic cyst at the lower pole of the left kidney. Histologic examination of the nephrectomy specimens in each case revealed a unilocular cyst with intracystic and pericystic hemorrhage. In each case, the cyst was lined by a single layer of cells with ample eosinophilic cytoplasm and benign nuclear features without mucinous or müllerian differentiation. Histochemical staining showed Alcian blue positivity on the cell surface, which was sensitive to hyaluronidase digestion. Intracytoplasmic mucin, however, was not detected. Immunostaining showed that the cyst lining cells were positive for keratin, vimentin, HBME-1, WT1, and thrombomodulin but negative for carcinoembryonic antigen, B72.3, Leu-M1, and BerEP4. The first case was positive for calretinin, whereas the second was negative. These findings support the mesothelial nature of the cysts.

Value of the mesothelium-associated antibodies thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6, calretinin, and CD44H in distinguishing epithelioid pleural mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura

Until recently, the standard approach of most laboratories in distinguishing epithelioid pleural mesothelioma from metastatic adenocarcinoma has been a negative result from a panel of adenocarcinoma-associated antibodies. However, several "mesothelium-associated" antibodies have been proposed as useful in this situation, and we have applied four of these putative mesothelioma markers--thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6, calretinin, and CD44H--to a series of 61 epithelioid pleural mesotheliomas and 63 metastatic adenocarcinomas with known primary sites (lung = 19; breast = 21; ovary = 6; colon = 10; kidney = 4; uterus, epididymis, pancreas = 1 case each). Of the mesotheliomas, 55 of 61 (90%) stained for thrombomodulin, 56 of 61 (92%) for cytokeratin 5/6, 47 of 51 cases (92%) were positive for calretinin, and 39 of 43 (91%) were positive for CD44H. Of the metastatic adenocarcinomas, 12 of 63 (19%) cases were positive for thrombomodulin, 9 of 63 (14%) were positive for CK5/6, and 27 of 60 (45%) were positive for CD44H. With calretinin, only 1 case of 59 (2%) showed positive nuclear staining. All four antibodies stained reactive mesothelium; thrombomodulin also stained endothelium; and CD44H variably stained lymphocytes, macrophages, and fibroblasts. We conclude that all four antibodies show high sensitivity for epithelioid mesothelioma, but only calretinin (98%), cytokeratin 5/6 (86%), and thrombomodulin (81%) show sufficient specificity for practical use in this situation.

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

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

The immunohistochemical diagnostic panel for epithelial mesothelioma: a reevaluation after heat-induced epitope retrieval

The immunohistochemical diagnosis between epithelial mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma is currently based on the use of a panel of antibodies to adenocarcinoma-associated antigens and a few antibodies to mesothelial-associated antigens. Since the introduction of epitope retrieval methods, the sensitivity of many antibodies has been enhanced. Thus, a reevaluation of the mesothelioma/adenocarcinoma diagnostic panel becomes necessary. We studied 268 paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed tumor samples that included 57 epithelial mesotheliomas and 211 adenocarcinomas of various origins, comparing an extensive antibody panel with and without heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER). Marked increase in the sensitivity of several antibodies, with no loss of specificity, was found when HIER was used. After statistical analysis, the antibodies to the epithelial glycoproteins carcinoembryonic antigen, BerEp4, and Bg8 emerged as the best discriminators between adenocarcinoma and epithelial mesothelioma within the entire panel. The mesothelium-associated antibodies, HBME-1, calretinin, and thrombomodulin were less sensitive and less specific than the former, although they were found to be useful on certain cases. Antibodies to cytokeratins and vimentin, although of minor diagnostic value in this context, may be helpful to evaluate the quality of antigen preservation. This study confirms the value of immunohistochemistry to accurately distinguish mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma when an antibody panel approach is used. The addition of heat-induced epitope retrieval methods increases the effectiveness of the procedure and is recommended for most of the antibody panel members.

HBME-1 and antithrombomodulin in the differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma of pleura

AIMS

To determine the usefulness of antibodies HBME-1 and antithrombomodulin in the differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma of the pleura.

METHODS

Using microwave antigen retrieval and streptavidin-biotin complex horseradish peroxidase immunohistochemistry the above antibodies were used to stain sections of 57 malignant mesotheliomas, 17 reactive pleural hyperplasias, 23 cases of carcinoma metastatic in pleura, 20 primary ovarian cell carcinomas, and 20 primary renal cell carcinomas.

RESULTS

Eighty six per cent of mesotheliomas and 82% of reactive mesothelial hyperplasias stained strongly with HBME-1. However, 48% of carcinomas metastatic to pleura also stained, as did all serous ovarian carcinomas. Seventy two per cent of mesotheliomas and 24% of reactive mesothelial hyperplasias stained strongly with the antithrombomodulin antibody; 86% and 88%, respectively, of these cases showed staining of any type. While 26% of metastatic carcinomas showed some staining with antithrombomodulin, only one third of these (9%) showed strong, yet focal, staining. Of 40 ovarian and renal carcinomas only two (5%) showed any staining with antithrombomodulin.

CONCLUSIONS

HBME-1, although a sensitive mesothelial marker, is not sufficiently specific to be useful diagnostically, as almost half of carcinomas metastatic to pleura also stained positive. Antithrombomodulin is also a sensitive mesothelial marker and is sufficiently specific to be a useful discriminator, positively identifying, in appropriate circumstances, the mesothelial nature of a cell population.

Mesothelioma-binding antibodies: thrombomodulin, OV 632 and HBME-1 and their use in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

The aim of this study was to examine the expression of three putative mesothelioma-binding antibodies, thrombomodulin, OV 632 and HBME-1 in 42 malignant mesotheliomas (27 pleural and 15 peritoneal) and 32 pulmonary adenocarcinomas. Evaluation of their use in differentiating between the mesotheliomas and pulmonary adenocarcinomas was assessed. Thrombomodulin was expressed by 22 of 42 (52%) mesotheliomas but was seen in eight of 12 pure epithelial-type mesotheliomas of the pleura and in all four papillary epithelial peritoneal mesotheliomas. For pure epithelial mesotheliomas thrombomodulin was 75% sensitive. Only two of 32 pulmonary adenocarcinomas were immunoreactive yielding a 94% specificity for thrombomodulin. In comparison, OV 632 and HBME-1 showed 67% and 62% antibody sensitivity, respectively, for malignant mesothelioma but this was accompanied by low specificity (OV 632, 37%; HBME-1, 28%). Both OV 632 and HBME-1 are considered unsuitable for use in differentiating between mesotheliomas and pulmonary adenocarcinomas. We advocate the use of thrombomodulin as a mesothelioma-binding antibody in the standard panel of antibodies used in the evaluation of malignant mesothelioma.