Malignant mesothelioma: current status of histopathologic diagnosis and molecular profile

Pleural Mesothelioma: Current Practice and Approach

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diagnosis was aided with the use of special histochemical stains-PAS, D-PAS, and mucicarmine, which now very much have been replaced by immunohistochemical stains.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

Diagnostic accuracy of BRCA1-associated protein 1 in malignant mesothelioma: a meta-analysis

Background

Conventional measurements are not always helpful in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM). Increasing studies indicate that loss of BRCA1–associated protein 1 (BAP1) detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a useful diagnostic marker for MM. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of BAP1 in MM.

Results

In total, 12 eligible studies with a total of 1824 patients were selected. Results indicated that loss of BAP1 sustained a pooled sensitivity of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.50–0.62), specificity of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.95–1.00), PLR of 548.82 (95% CI, 11.31–2.7 × 104), NLR of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.39–0.50), DOR of 1247.78 (95% CI, 25.08 −6.2 × 104) in discriminating MM from non-MM. The AUC of 0.72, reflecting the SROC, indicated moderate diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup analysis showed that BAP1 detection in histological specimens owned the higher diagnostic performance than cytological ones. In addition, BAP1 showed superior diagnostic accuracy in epithelioid MM than biphasic or sarcomatoid MM.

Materials and Methods

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library and reference lists of related articles were searched, and studies that evaluated the utility of BAP1 in MM were included. Data from eligible studies were pooled to estimate sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Summary receiver operating curves (SROC) was applied to estimate overall diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions

Current meta-analysis indicates that detection of BAP1 by IHC is a useful diagnostic marker for MM. Loss of BAP1 almost provides confirming diagnosis for MM, while positive staining for BAP1 is not enough to exclude non-MM.

False-positive results in diagnostic immunohistochemistry are related to horseradish peroxidase conjugates in commercially available assays

False-positive results in diagnostic immunopathology can lead to unnecessary treatments. The purpose of this study was to do a side-by-side comparison of 10 different antibodies commonly used in the clinical laboratory altering only the horseradish peroxidase (HRP) conjugate. The automated Leica BOND-MAX platform was used to study serial sections from 203 tissues including controls compared in a blinded fashion using the HRP conjugates from Leica (Refine HRP), Ventana Medical Systems (Ultraview HRP), and Enzo Life Sciences (Polyview HRP). False-positive results, defined as signal from cases known to not contain the target, were noted in 23 (13%) of 171 cases with the Leica HRP, 62 (36%) of 171 cases with the Ventana HRP, and no cases with the Enzo HRP. Each data set was performed simultaneously allocating 1 tray for each of the 3 different HRP conjugates. HER2/neu analysis from triple-negative breast cancers were scored as positive by immunohistochemistry in 6 (24%) of 25 cases using either the Refine or Ultraview HRP and in 0 of 25 cases with the Enzo conjugate. It is concluded that false-positive results in a wide spectrum of diagnostic immunopathology tests can occur from 13% to 36% of cases with commonly used commercial assays based on the HRP conjugate.

Phenotypes and karyotypes of human malignant mesothelioma cell lines

Background

Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive tumour of serosal surfaces most commonly pleura. Characterised cell lines represent a valuable tool to study the biology of mesothelioma. The aim of this study was to develop and biologically characterise six malignant mesothelioma cell lines to evaluate their potential as models of human malignant mesothelioma.

Methods

Five lines were initiated from pleural biopsies, and one from pleural effusion of patients with histologically proven malignant mesothelioma. Mesothelial origin was assessed by standard morphology, Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and immunocytochemistry. Growth characteristics were assayed using population doubling times. Spectral karyotyping was performed to assess chromosomal abnormalities. Authentication of donor specific derivation was undertaken by DNA fingerprinting using a panel of SNPs.

Results

Most of cell lines exhibited spindle cell shape, with some retaining stellate shapes. At passage 2 to 6 all lines stained positively for calretinin and cytokeratin 19, and demonstrated capacity for anchorage-independent growth. At passage 4 to 16, doubling times ranged from 30–72 hours, and on spectral karyotyping all lines exhibited numerical chromosomal abnormalities ranging from 41 to 113. Monosomy of chromosomes 8, 14, 22 or 17 was observed in three lines. One line displayed four different karyotypes at passage 8, but only one karyotype at passage 42, and another displayed polyploidy at passage 40 which was not present at early passages. At passages 5–17, TEM showed characteristic features of mesothelioma ultrastructure in all lines including microvilli and tight intercellular junctions.

Conclusion

These six cell lines exhibit varying cell morphology, a range of doubling times, and show diverse passage-dependent structural chromosomal changes observed in malignant tumours. However they retain characteristic immunocytochemical protein expression profiles of mesothelioma during maintenance in artificial culture systems. These characteristics support their potential as in vitro model systems for studying cellular, molecular and genetic aspects of mesothelioma.

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.

Applications and limitations of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is an uncommon malignant epithelial neoplasm originating from the serosal surface of body cavities. Because serosal surfaces are a common site of metastatic spread for a variety of malignant neoplasms originating from internal organs, separating malignant mesothelioma from metastatic tumors is of clinical importance. The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma is complex and usually requires a multimodal approach that includes careful clinical history and physical examination, imaging studies, and tissue sampling for multimodal evaluation including routine histology, histochemistry, electron microscopy, and immunohistochemical tests. Of these, immunohistochemistry has emerged as the most valuable and readily available modality for the routine evaluation of these tumors. Unfortunately, no specific antibodies have yet been developed that can be accepted as exclusive for these tumors. The immunohistochemical diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma therefore depends on the use of a panel of stains that includes markers that are commonly expected to react with these tumors ("positive" markers) and markers that are not commonly expected to react with these tumors ("negative" markers). Additionally, the selection and utility of these various markers can vary considerably based on a constellation of circumstances, including patient sex, histologic appearance of the tumor (ie, epithelioid vs. sarcomatoid, etc), and various other clinical circumstances. Herein, we will review the currently available immunohistochemical markers used for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma and offer suggestions for the use of appropriate panels of stains based on specific morphologic types and clinical circumstances.