Comparison of tumour markers in malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma

Differential Diagnosis of Epithelioid Malignant Mesothelioma With Lung and Breast Pleural Metastasis: A Systematic Review Compared With a Standardized Panel of Antibodies-A New Proposal That May Influence Pathologic Practice

CONTEXT.—

Pleural mesothelioma is a rare cancer with an often-challenging diagnosis because of its potential to be a great mimicker of many other tumors. Among them, primary lung and breast cancers are the 2 main causes of pleural metastasis. The development and application of targeted therapeutic agents have made it even more important to achieve an accurate diagnosis. In this setting, international guidelines have recommended the use of 2 positive and 2 negative immunohistochemical biomarkers.

OBJECTIVES.—

To define the most highly specific and sensitive minimum set of antibodies for routine practice to use for the separation of epithelioid malignant mesothelioma from lung and breast metastasis and to determine the most relevant expression cutoff.

DESIGN.—

To provide information at different levels of expression of 16 mesothelial and epithelial biomarkers, we performed a systematic review of articles published between 1979 and 2017, and we compared those data to results from the Mesothelioma Telepathology Network (MESOPATH) of the standardized panel used in routine practice database since 1998.

RESULTS.—

Our results indicate that the following panel of markers-calretinin (poly)/thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1; clone 8G7G3/1) and calretinin (poly)/estrogen receptor-α (ER-α; clone EP1)-should be recommended; ultimately, based on the MESOPATH database, we highlight their relevance which are the most sensitive and specific panel useful to the differential diagnosis at 10% cutoff.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Highlighted by their relevance in the large cohort reported, we recommend 2 useful panels to the differential diagnosis at 10% cutoff.

Pregnancy Specific β-1 Glycoprotein 1 is Expressed in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and its Subcellular Localization Correlates with Overall Survival

Proteins of the pregnancy specific β-1 glycoprotein (PSG) family are renowned for their elevated expression during pregnancy. Only few reports have investigated their expression in adenocarcinomas. We studied the expression of PSG1 in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In a cohort of 104 patient samples, immunohistochemical analysis determined PSG1 expression in every specimen. PSG1 was found at apical and cytoplasmic localization or solely at cytoplasmic localization, with the latter case being correlated to shortened median survival (25 vs 11 months, logrank p-value < 0.001). At the same time, enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) did not detect elevated PSG1 levels in the plasma of PDAC patients as opposed to the plasma of healthy, non-pregnant control individuals. We also probed the impact of PSG1 expression in a murine tumor model system, using subcutaneous injection of Colo-26 cells into immunocompetent BALB/c mice. Here, tumor growth was not affected by the expression of human PSG1. Our study reaffirms interest into the tumor-contextual biology of PSG proteins.

Immunohistochemical marker panels for distinguishing between epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma

The distinction between epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma remains an important diagnostic challenge for surgical pathologists. The aim of the present study was to select a limited and appropriate panel of antibodies that can differentiate between epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma. Specimens of 90 epithelioid mesotheliomas and 51 lung adenocarcinomas obtained from Japanese cases were examined using calretinin, WT1, AE1/AE3, CAM5.2, cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), thrombomodulin, CEA, CA19-9, and CA125. Ninety-six percent of epithelioid mesotheliomas were positive for calretinin; 99% for WT1; 100% for AE1/AE; 97% for CAM5.2; 70% for CK 5/6; 91% for vimentin; 96% for EMA; 71% for thrombomodulin; 77% for mesothelin; 7% for CEA; 17% for CA19-9; and 85% for CA125. In contrast, 33% of lung adenocarcinomas were positive for calretinin; 16% for WT1; 100% for AE1/AE3, CAM5.2, and EMA; 41% for CK 5/6; 47% for vimentin; 20% for thrombomodulin; 69% for mesothelin; 98% for CEA; 73% for CA19-9; and 80% for CA125. For distinguishing between epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma, the combination of CEA, calretinin and each WT1 or thrombomodulin was suggested to be the best panel of immunohistochemical markers.

What are the current best immunohistochemical markers for the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma? A review and update

Numerous immunohistochemical markers that can assist in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas, some of which have only recently been recognized, are currently available. Because the various types of carcinomas express these markers differently, their selection for inclusion in a diagnostic panel can vary according to the differential diagnosis. This article provides a critical review of all of the information that is presently available on those markers that are believed to have the greatest potential for assisting in distinguishing between epithelioid mesotheliomas and those carcinomas with which they are most likely to be confused. Information is also provided regarding the panels of immunohistochemical markers that are, at present, recommended in these differential diagnoses.

Sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemical markers used in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma: a detailed systematic analysis using published data

AIMS

Immunohistochemistry is frequently employed to aid the distinction between mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura, but there is uncertainty as to which antibodies are most useful. We analysed published data in order to establish sensitivity and specificity of antibodies used to distinguish between these tumours with a view to defining the most appropriate immunohistochemical panel to use when faced with this diagnostic problem.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic analysis of the results of 88 published papers comparing immunohistochemical staining of a panel of antibodies in mesothelioma with epithelioid areas, and pulmonary adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura. Results for a total of 15 antibodies were analysed and expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The most sensitive antibodies for identifying pulmonary adenocarcinoma were MOC-31 and BG8 (both 93%), whilst the most specific were monoclonal CEA (97%) and TTF-1 (100%). The most sensitive antibodies to identify epithelioid mesothelioma were CK5/6 (83%) and HBME-1 (85%). The most specific antibodies were CK5/6 (85%) and WT1 (96%).

CONCLUSIONS

No single antibody is able to differentiate reliably between these two tumours. The use of a small panel of antibodies with a high combined sensitivity and specificity is recommended.

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.

Immunohistochemical differential diagnosis of pleural effusions, with emphasis on malignant mesothelioma

The immunohistochemical diagnosis of atypical epithelial proliferations in pleural fluid is a challenging topic in cytopathology and surgical pathology. Mesothelioma may be simulated clinically and radiologically by several other nonneoplastic and neoplastic disorders, mandating that strict histologic, histochemical, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural guidelines be followed for its diagnosis. Because of its availability to most laboratories, immunohistochemistry has emerged as the most commonly used procedure for the diagnosis of pleural malignancies. This review considers the current status of that investigative modality, with particular attention to lesions that are suspected to be mesothelial.

A comparative evaluation of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural tumours

AIMS

To determine the value of immunocytochemistry in differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma from carcinoma in a pleural biopsy using commercially available monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A panel of monoclonal antibodies against keratins, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), epithelial antigen Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tumour-associated glycoprotein (B72.3), Leu-M1, CD30 (Ber-H2), vimentin and desmin, was applied to 40 cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma and 23 cases of carcinoma metastatic to the pleura (16 pulmonary and seven extrapulmonary). Positivities for Ber-EP4, CEA, B72.3 and Leu-M1 were found to have the highest nosologic sensitivities (87.0%, 65.2%, 52.5% and 43.5%, respectively) and specificities (97.5%, 97.5%, 100% and 95%, respectively) for carcinoma. Positive staining for vimentin had the highest sensitivity (87.5%) with 95.7% specificity for mesothelioma. Positive staining for desmin was found in 45% of mesotheliomas and 0% of carcinomas. Diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity (P-values) were calculated for these markers. In respect to the diagnostic power defined by the clinically relevant predictive values of positive and negative tests, we found that a two-marker panel of antibodies including vimentin and Ber-EP4 is most useful for the histopathological distinction between carcinoma (pulmonary or extrapulmonary) and malignant pleural mesothelioma.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of Ber-EP4 and vimentin provides the most sensitive and specific pair of markers for distinguishing between malignant pleural mesothelioma and carcinoma metastatic to the pleura. The prevalence of the tested tumours should be taken into account when evaluating the clinical value of ancillary techniques in pathology.

The value of antibodies 44-3A6, SM3, HBME-1, and thrombomodulin in differentiating epithelial pleural mesothelioma from lung adenocarcinoma: a comparative study with other commonly used antibodies

The distinction between pleural mesothelioma and peripheral pulmonary adenocarcinoma involving the pleura continues to be a diagnostic problem in surgical pathology. In recent years, the use of various immunohistochemical markers to facilitate this differential diagnosis has become common. In this study, the value of monoclonal antibodies 44-3A6, SM3, HBME-1, and thrombomodulin is compared in the differentiation of these conditions. Fifteen (68.2%) of 22, and 10 (52.6%) of 19 mesotheliomas stained positively with 44-3A6 and SM3, respectively, whereas all 23 (100%) adenocarcinomas reacted with both antibodies. Sixteen (80%) of 20 mesotheliomas and 14 (63.6%) of 22 lung adenocarcinomas reacted with HBME-1, whereas 16 (80%) of 20 mesotheliomas and only three (11.1%) of 27 adenocarcinomas were positive for thrombomodulin. Because thrombomodulin was expressed in most mesotheliomas but in only a few lung adenocarcinomas, this marker may have some diagnostic value when it is included in the standard immunohistochemical panel of markers used in the evaluation of mesotheliomas, especially when a positive marker for mesothelioma is needed. Antibodies 44-3A6, SM3, and HBME-1 have no practical value in discriminating epithelial pleural mesothelioma from lung adenocarcinoma.

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.

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

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma has occasionally been reported to mimic malignant pleural mesothelioma. Morphologically, histochemically and immunohistochemically, similarities in the two tumours exist making their differentiation difficult, particularly in biopsy specimens. The aim of this study was to make a comparative immunohistochemical analysis of the two tumours by use of a panel of four antibodies (Leu M1; Ber EP4; thrombomodulin and Tamm-Horsfall protein). Their suitability in differentiating between the two tumours was assessed. We examined 20 cases of renal cell carcinoma and 20 cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma. On immunostaining with Leu M1, 14 of 20 renal cell carcinomas were positive, yielding 70% sensitivity and 95% specificity and one of 20 mesothelioma. In comparison, Ber EP4 antibody stained only seven of 20 of the renal cell carcinomas. In addition, it was noted that four tubulo-papillary pattern renal cell carcinomas stained positively with both anti-Leu M1 antibody and Ber EP4 antibody. Thrombomodulin immunostaining was present in 11 of 20 mesotheliomas (55% sensitivity and demonstrated 95% specificity) and one of 20 renal cell carcinomas. For epithelial mesotheliomas only, thrombomodulin staining was identified in 10 of 14 cases. In the differentiation of renal cell carcinoma from epithelial mesothelioma we recommend the use of Leu M1 and thrombomodulin as diagnostically useful markers. None of the antibodies used in this study was effective in distinguishing sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma from sarcomatous mesothelioma. Tamm-Horsfall protein showed little diagnostic utility in differentiating the two tumours.

The diagnostic implications of variable cytokeratin expression in mesotheliomas

Immunostaining for cytokeratin has a well-established diagnostic application in distinguishing sarcomatous mesotheliomas from sarcomas based on the premise that cytokeratin expression is common in mesotheliomas but very rare in sarcomas. However, the frequency of cytokeratin detection is highly dependent on the choice of antibody. The aim of this study was to examine the distribution of simple cytokeratins and stratified cytokeratins in 45 mesotheliomas of various types and to assess the diagnostic utility of a simple cytokeratin antibody, a stratified cytokeratin antibody, and a broad spectrum cytokeratin antibody with the aim of establishing the superiority of one for routine diagnostic use. Particular attention was paid to the potential utility of these antibodies in biopsy specimens. The broad spectrum cytokeratin antibody performed better than both the simple cytokeratin antibody (paired t-test: P < 0.01) and the stratified cytokeratin antibody (P < 0.01) as a diagnostic marker of mesothelioma and should be used in preference to the other two antibodies, particularly when considering small biopsy specimens.

Multiple-marker immunohistochemical phenotypes distinguishing malignant pleural mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma

The diagnostic distinction between malignant pleural epithelial mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma is often difficult and partially reliant on the use of immunohistochemistry (IHC). While there are several available IHC markers preferentially expressed in adenocarcinomas compared with mesotheliomas, there are no readily available or well-validated markers preferentially expressed in mesotheliomas and no markers are absolutely specific for either tumor. Thus, there always will be an element of doubt regarding the identity of lesions diagnosed by IHC using these markers and an undesirable reliance on negative results if the lesion is truly a mesothelioma. To help optimize the ability of currently available but imperfect markers to resolve adenocarcinoma and mesothelioma and to minimize the impact of false-negative results on their diagnosis, a systematic study was undertaken to identify multiple-marker immunostaining phenotypes that are the most specific and sensitive for each type of tumor. The study involved staining a series of malignant epithelial mesotheliomas (n = 34) and pulmonary adenocarcinomas (n = 103) with eight markers that were selected on the basis of previous reports of their relatively restricted specificities for one or the other of these lesions (and included carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], tumor-associated glycoprotein 72 [B72.3], Leu-M1, vimentin, thrombomodulin, secretory component, carcinoma antigen-125, and periodic-acid-Schiff with diastase [for mucin]. Considering the markers one, two, and three at a time, all possible combinations of results were analyzed by computer to identify the phenotype most sensitive and specific for adenocarcinoma or mesothelioma. The best single marker was CEA (positive: 97% specific and sensitive for adenocarcinoma; negative: 97% specific and sensitive for mesothelioma). However, because examples of both tumor types expressed CEA, none of the study cases were unequivocally resolved and the risk of false-negative results was relatively high. The best two markers were CEA and B72.3 (both positive: 100% specific and 88% sensitive for adenocarcinoma; both negative: 99% specific and 97% sensitive for mesothelioma). The four possible combinations of results for these two markers resolved 68% of cases (93 of 137 cases), with less risk of false-negative results than a single marker. In general, several three-marker panels resulted in sensitivities and specificities similar to the two-marker panel of CEA and B72.3. In particular, the three-marker panel of CEA, B72.3, and Leu-M1 resulted in eight possible phenotypes that resolved 74% of cases (101 of 137 cases), with even further reduced risk of false-negative results.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

The frequency of p53 immunostaining in asbestos-associated mesotheliomas and non-asbestos-associated mesotheliomas

It has been suggested that asbestos might have an important role in the development of p53 mutations in mesotheliomas. The objective of this study was to examine asbestos-associated mesotheliomas and non-asbestos-associated mesotheliomas to establish whether the frequency of p53 immunostaining and, by implication, p53 gene mutation is related to asbestos exposure. Immunopositivity for p53 was found in seven (44%) of the 16 mesotheliomas examined. The frequency was approximately the same in both the asbestos-associated mesotheliomas and the non-asbestos-associated mesotheliomas. It is concluded that the frequency of p53 immunostaining in mesotheliomas and, by implication, the frequency of p53 gene mutation is probably not related to asbestos exposure.

Malignant mesothelioma in women

BACKGROUND

Malignant mesothelioma reportedly shows different epidemiology and pathology in females, and a proportion are believed to arise spontaneously.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy seven cases of malignant mesothelioma in females were reviewed, examined by histochemistry and immunohistochemistry, assessed for asbestosis and lung fibre burden by transmission electron microscopy with energy dispersive x ray analysis, and compared with 31 female controls.

RESULTS

Two of one hundred and three cases tested for carcinoembryonic antigen were positive and were excluded from further analysis. Tumour cases showed increased amphibole burdens; in those in whom exposure information was known, 74 (80%) of 93 patients had a history of exposure to asbestos. Seventy two (47%) of 152 patients had lung fibrosis. Tumour site and histological type were little different from those reported in adult males. Mixed type histological pattern, lung fibrosis, and peritoneal site were associated with heavier lung asbestos burdens, but not exclusively. Thirty five (30%) of 117 patients had amphibole burdens of less than 2 x 10(6) fibres/g; the sites affected and the histological pattern of tumours in this group were similar to those in cases with amphibole fibre counts of > or = 2 x 10(6)/g lung. A higher lung amphibole burden than the mean burden in control females was found in 115 (98%) of 117 patients tested.

CONCLUSIONS

The pathology of malignant mesothelioma appears to be similar in women and in men, and in cases associated and unassociated with asbestos.

p53 immunostaining in the distinction between benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations using formalin-fixed paraffin sections

The distinction between reactive mesothelium and mesothelioma in pleural biopsy specimens is notoriously difficult, and conventional immunohistochemical markers have provided no relief. The object of this study was to examine the frequency of immunohistochemically detectable p53 overexpression in routinely processed, paraffin-embedded tissue from pleural mesotheliomas and from pleura showing reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, using a polyclonal antibody to formalin-resistant p53 epitopes, and to consider the diagnostic utility of this antibody in the distinction between mesothelioma and reactive mesothelium in pleural biopsy specimens. Immunostaining was enhanced by pepsin predigestion prior to the application of the primary antibody. Positivity occurred in 10/16 epithelial mesotheliomas, 9/19 biphasic mesotheliomas, 2/12 sarcomatous mesotheliomas but in none of 20 reactive pleura. Immunostaining was particularly intense in some of the biopsy specimens, which may be due to the rapidity with which these small pieces of tissue were fixed. In conclusion, this study suggests that p53 immunostaining can help to distinguish epithelial or biphasic mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded pleural biopsy specimens.

Intermediate filament expression in mesotheliomas: leiomyoid mesotheliomas are not uncommon

In this study we examined intermediate filament expression in 45 formalin-fixed mesotheliomas. Immunostaining for cytokeratin was found in 86%, for vimentin in 71%, and for desmin in 4%; none stained for glial fibrillary acidic protein or neurofilament. The two biphasic mesotheliomas which expressed desmin also expressed smooth muscle actin but were negative for myoglobin. This, together with the ultrastructural findings, was taken as unequivocal evidence of a leiomyoid form of mesothelioma which might easily be confused with leiomyosarcoma. Both of these tumours co-expressed cytokeratin, exemplifying the value of cytokeratin immunostaining in the distinction between mesothelioma and sarcoma. Consistent non-expression of glial fibrillary acidic protein in mesotheliomas may help to distinguish them from nerve sheath tumours.

'Pleural' and pulmonary carcinosarcomas

The histological distinction between carcinosarcoma and mesothelioma has received little attention. The object of this study was to describe the histology and immunohistochemistry of two carcinosarcomas presenting as pleural tumours. These were compared with 12 carcinosarcomas from sites within the lung, and with the established features of mesothelioma. Histologically and immunohistochemically, these 'pleural' carcinosarcomas are similar to conventional pulmonary carcinosarcomas but accurate recognition is hindered by their gross appearance and biphasic histology which closely mimic mesothelioma. They may exhibit features such as neutral mucin, expression of carcinoembryonic antigen, squamous differentiation, and neuroendocrine differentiation which, when present, are evidence against mesothelioma. These tumours are rare and have passed unnoticed until now.

Immunohistochemical positivity for neuron-specific enolase and Leu-7 in malignant mesotheliomas

The discovery of immunostaining for neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and Leu-7 in a small cell mesothelioma prompted us to study some putative immunohistochemical markers of neuroendocrine differentiation in malignant mesotheliomas and to examine any diagnostically important immunohistochemical distinctions or similarities between malignant mesothelioma and other histologically similar lung tumours. Most mesotheliomas were positive for NSE (96 per cent) and Leu-7 (70 per cent) and positivity for these two markers was also found in small cell carcinomas (NSE 25 per cent, Leu-7 81 per cent) and adenocarcinomas (NSE 28 per cent, Leu-7 28 per cent) but carcinosarcomas were positive for only NSE (44 per cent). Chromogranin A positivity was found only in occasional small cell carcinomas (6 per cent) and adenocarcinomas (6 per cent). No tumour was positive for bombesin. The high incidence of NSE and Leu-7 positivity in mesotheliomas is an important original observation because it guards against the unjustified exclusion of mesothelioma from a differential diagnosis on the basis of positivity for these two markers.

Non-small cell lung cancer. Part I: Biology, diagnosis, and staging

Squamous, large cell, and adenocarcinoma, collectively termed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), are diagnosed in approximately 75% of patients with lung cancer in the United States. The treatment of these three tumor cell types is approached in virtually identical fashion because, in contrast to small cell carcinoma of the lung, NSCLC more frequently presents with localized disease at the time of diagnosis and is thus more often amenable to surgical resection but less frequently responds to chemotherapy and irradiation. Cigarette smoking is etiologically related to the development of NSCLC in the great majority of cases. Genetic mutations in dominant oncogenes such as K-ras, loss of genetic material on chromosomes 3p, 11p, and 17p, and deletions or mutations in tumor suppressor genes such as rb and p53 have been documented in NSCLC tumors and tumor cell lines. NSCLC is diagnosed because of symptoms related to the primary tumor or regional or distant metastases, as an incidental finding on chest radiograph, or rarely because of a paraneoplastic syndrome such as hypercalcemia or hypertrophic pulmonary osteoarthropathy. Screening smokers with periodic chest radiographs and sputum cytologic examination has not been shown to reduce mortality. The diagnosis of NSCLC is usually established by fiberoptic bronchoscopy or percutaneous fine-needle aspiration, by biopsy of a regional or distant metastatic site, or at the time of thoracotomy. Pathologically, NSCLC arises in a setting of bronchial mucosal metaplasia and dysplasia that progressively increase over time. Squamous carcinoma more often presents as a central endobronchial lesion, while large cell and adenocarcinoma have a tendency to arise in the lung periphery and invade the pleura. Once the diagnosis is made, the extent of tumor dissemination is determined. Since most NSCLC patients who survive 5 years or longer have undergone surgical resection of their cancers, the focus of the staging process is to determine whether the patient is a candidate for thoracotomy with curative intent. The dominant prognostic factors in NSCLC are extent of tumor dissemination, ambulatory or performance status, and degree of weight loss. Stages I and II NSCLC, which are confined within the pleural reflection, are managed by surgical resection whenever possible, with approximate 5-year survival of 45% and 25%, respectively. Patients with stage IIIa cancers, in which the primary tumor has extended through the pleura or metastasized to ipsilateral or subcarinal lymph nodes, can occasionally be surgically resected but are often managed with definitive thoracic irradiation and have 5-year survival of approximately 15%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Peritoneal mesothelioma

We report two patients who presented with small bowel obstruction secondary to peritoneal mesothelioma. The difficulties in establishing this diagnosis at an early stage are illustrated. Recent advances in the management of peritoneal mesothelioma are reviewed.

Monoclonal antibodies in the cytodiagnosis of serous effusions

In order to assess the value of immunocytochemical staining as a method of discriminating between benign reactive mesothelial cells and malignant epithelial cells in serous effusions, we have studied the reactions of a panel of commercially available antibodies on cells harvested from 83 pleural and peritoneal fluids and compared the results with the clinical and cytological diagnoses. The antibodies used were raised against cytokeratin (PKK1), epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA), pregnancy specific B1-glycoprotein (SP1) and leucocyte common antigen (LCA). Anti-CEA was positive in 16 of 39 effusions (41%) containing carcinoma cells. Pregnancy specific B1-glycoprotein (SP1) was positive in 33% of the same samples. Mesothelial cells did not stain with these antibodies. Thus anti-CEA and SP1 can be used to discriminate between benign mesothelial and malignant epithelial cells in effusions. Anti-PKK1 stained both benign reactive mesothelial cells and malignant epithelial cells and cannot be used to discriminate between these two cell types. Strong positive staining of malignant cells was noted with anti-EMA. However, as occasional weak staining of mesothelial cells was also noted, strong staining with this antibody may be regarded as suspicious but not conclusive of malignancy.

Verification of the histologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in relation to the binding of an antimesothelial cell antibody

The diagnostic value of a recently developed polyclonal antibody to mesothelial cells has been tested by means of an immunoperoxidase technique to differentiate mesothelioma from lung carcinoma. All 16 unequivocal mesotheliomas reacted with the antibody, whereas none of the 31 lung carcinomas did, thus confirming the high specificity and the high sensitivity of the antibody. Furthermore, 20 cases of serous membranes tumor, in which major diagnostic disagreement was present when reviewed by the members of the Commission of the European Communities Mesothelioma Panel, were examined. Sixteen of the 20 cases were immunoreactive to the antimesothelial cell antibody, thus establishing their mesothelial origin. Given conventionally fixed and processed tissues, it appears that this antibody may be used as an appropriate diagnostic adjunct to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Detection of malignant pleural effusions by tumor marker evaluation

Cytologic examination and determination of tumor markers (PHI, LDH, alpha-1-glycoprotein, alpha-2-HS-glycoprotein, beta 2-microglobulin, ferritin [corrected], sialic acid, IgE, fetoprotein, CEA, beta HCG and beta 1-SP-glycoprotein) were carried out in pleural fluid samples obtained from 70 patients with suspected neoplasia. Tumor markers were also determined in sera. The protein content of all pleural effusions was greater than or equal to 3 g/dl. Patients were grouped according to diagnosis as follows: (a) 42 with neoplastic diseases (7 mesotheliomas and 19 lung, 4 ovarian, 3 breast and 8 miscellaneous cancers), (b) 22 with benign inflammations and (c) 6 with congestive effusions. Of the parameters examined, only CEA and beta-HCG [corrected] gave information that the effusion was probably malignant. Using 6 ng/ml as cut-off for CEA and 10 mIU/ml for beta HCG, the sensitivity was 57.1% and 45.2%, respectively, specificity was 92.8% for both parameters and test efficiency 0.75 and 0.69, respectively. When CEA and beta HCG were considered together sensitivity increased to 73.8% and efficiency to 0.78. CEA and/or beta HCG were positive in the pleural effusions of 19 of the 20 malignant pleural effusions, all with a negative cytologic examination, which subsequently became positive in 8. Because of their high specificity, these two parameters are a useful tool and can be routinely measured to evaluate pleural effusions of dubious origin, even if CEA and beta HCG cannot, on [corrected] their own, define the primary malignancy.

Asbestos-related malignancy

Asbestos-associated malignancies have received significant attention in the lay and medical literature because of the increasing frequency of two asbestos-associated tumors, lung carcinoma and mesothelioma; the wide distribution of asbestos; its status as a prototype environmental carcinogen; and the many recent legal compensation proceedings, for which medical testimony has been required. The understanding of asbestos-associated carcinogenesis has increased through study of animal models, human epidemiology, and, recently, the application of modern molecular biological techniques. However, the detailed mechanisms of carcinogenesis remain unknown. A wide variety of malignancies have been associated with asbestos, although the strongest evidence for a causal association is confined to lung cancer and mesothelioma. Epidemiological studies have provided evidence that both the type of asbestos fiber and the industry in which the exposure occurs may affect the rates of asbestos-associated cancers. It has been shown that asbestos exerts a carcinogenic effect independent of exposure to cigarette smoking that, for lung cancers, is synergistically enhanced by smoking. Other questions remain controversial, such as whether pulmonary fibrosis necessarily precedes asbestos-associated lung cancer and whether some threshold level of exposure to asbestos (including low-dose exposures that may occur in asbestos-associated public buildings) may be safe. Mesothelioma, the most closely asbestos-associated malignancy, has a dismal natural history and has been highly resistant to therapy. However, investigational multi-modality therapy may offer benefit to some patients. A description of the processes through which compensation claims for asbestos-associated malignancies are evaluated illustrates for physicians the legal system's approach to possible injury from toxic substances. The differences between scientific and legal reasoning about the causes of diseases with long latency, especially when they are imputed to toxic exposures are substantial, and may impede the application of toxicological evidence to legal disputes.

So-called peritoneal implants of ovarian carcinomas. Problems in differential diagnosis

The aim of this paper is the differential-diagnostic distinction of peritoneal 'implants' of serous ovarian tumours from morphologically similar lesions in the peritoneum. The authors investigated 22 cases of ovarian carcinomas, 'implants' of ovarian carcinomas, reactive mesothelial proliferates, endosalpingiosis, benign and malignant mesotheliomas, as well as papillary carcinomas of the pelvic peritoneum with conventional histological stainings and immunohistochemical methods (immunoperoxidase, ABC method). The cells of almost all mentioned lesions express cytokeratin, only the cells of the reactive mesothelial proliferates are partially keratin-negative. CEA was not detected in any of the lesions. Alpha-1-antitrypsin was present in the cells of some ovarian carcinomas and their implants. Lysozyme was found focally in some ovarian carcinomas and in some reactive mesothelial proliferates. An exact differentiation of peritoneal 'implants' as metastases of ovarian carcinomas or autochthonous neoplasias in the course of multifocal tumour development is not possible on the basis of our immunohistochemical findings.

Immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

The histological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma of the pleura, especially the distinction from peripheral adenocarcinoma of the lung, may be difficult. The immunohistochemical reports previously published on this subject show diverging results mainly because a variety of antibodies and staining techniques have been used by the different authors. To obtain comparable and reproducible results standard techniques and commercialized antibodies should be applied in routine pathology. In order to investigate the value of immunohistochemistry for the separation of the two entities formalin fixed and paraffin embedded blocks of 47 mesotheliomas and 22 adenocarcinomas were investigated with the PAP technique and commercially available antibodies to carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA), keratin, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), pregnancy specific antigen (SP1), S-100 protein and monoclonal antibody lu-5 (mAB lu-5). CEA positivity was found in all 22 adenocarcinomas examined, but only 2/47 (4%) of all mesotheliomas showed a positive result. SP1 was positive in 13/22 (59%) of the adenocarcinomas, whereas only 3/47 (6%) mesotheliomas were positive for this marker. No significant difference in the rate of positive cases in the adenocarcinoma and mesothelioma group could be found with the other above mentioned antigens. The results of our study indicate that especially CEA, but also SP1 are valuable markers in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.

Simultaneous immunoenzyme staining of vimentin and cytokeratins with monoclonal antibodies as an aid in the differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma

The occurrence and coexpression of the cytoskeletal proteins vimentin and cytokeratins were studied in malignant mesotheliomas and pulmonary carcinomas. For this purpose a double immunoenzyme staining with monoclonal antibodies was developed which made it possible to visualize vimentin and cytokeratins simultaneously within the same cell. A clear distinction between stromal cells (vimentin only) and tumour cells was also obtained. A total of 12 mesotheliomas (six mixed type and six epithelioid type) and 13 carcinomas (eight adenocarcinomas and five large cell undifferentiated carcinomas) were studied. The results revealed a clear difference between mesotheliomas and adenocarcinomas: 11 of 12 mesotheliomas showed coexpression of vimentin and cytokeratins in at least 50% of the tumour cells, while in seven of the eight adenocarcinomas none or only a few cells could be seen with this coexpression. In the undifferentiated large cell carcinomas three of five expressed both components, but in less than 25% of the cells. It is concluded that a reliable double immunoenzyme staining of vimentin and cytokeratins can be used as an additional means to distinguish malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

Keratin and epithelial membrane antigen immunoreactivity in nonneoplastic fibrous pleural lesions: implications for the diagnosis of desmoplastic mesothelioma

The histologic distinction between desmoplastic mesothelioma and reactive fibrosis and between biphasic desmoplastic mesothelioma and pleural metastases with desmoplasia can be difficult. The presence of such epithelial markers as keratin and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) within the fibrous areas of a pleural lesion might be construed as evidence in support of the diagnosis of desmoplastic mesothelioma. To test this hypothesis ten desmoplastic mesotheliomas were studied with monoclonal antisera to keratin and EMA and compared with ten hyaline pleural plaques, 11 pleural scars, five benign localized fibrous mesotheliomas, and eight desmoplastic pleural metastases. Although the hyalinized fibrous areas within the desmoplastic mesotheliomas stained with keratin (ten of ten) and EMA (five of ten), the following reactive fibrous pleural lesions were also positive: plaques (four of ten keratin-positive, five of ten EMA-positive); scars (six of 11 keratin-positive, four of 11 EMA-positive); and fibrosis induced by metastases (six of eight keratin-positive, one of eight EMA-positive). Benign localized fibrous mesotheliomas were keratin- and EMA-negative. This study suggests that both benign and malignant fibrous pleural lesions may be of mesothelial origin and demonstrates the need to determine by histologic criteria whether the spindle cell component is benign or malignant before assessing the significance of its keratin or EMA immunoreactivity. The lack of keratin and EMA staining in benign localized fibrous mesotheliomas might be of use in distinguishing benign localized cellular fibrous mesotheliomas from sarcomatous mesotheliomas.

The use of vimentin antibodies in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

An immunohistochemical investigation of vimentin, an intermediate filament, was carried out on formalin fixed paraffin embedded sections of 44 malignant mesotheliomas of the pleura and 24 pulmonary adenocarcinomas, in order to assess its value in differential diagnosis. Seventy-five percent of the malignant mesotheliomas showed positive staining for vimentin. An unexpected finding was the presence of vimentin in 46% of the pulmonary adenocarcinomas. In either case there was no correlation between the presence of vimentin and the histological types or grades of differentiation. The overall level of vimentin staining was significantly greater in the malignant mesotheliomas than in the pulmonary adenocarcinomas but no single antibody dilution was found to provide clear cut separation of the two groups. Vimentin does not appear to be a simple discriminatory marker of malignant mesothelioma.