Diagnostic value of claudin-4 marker in pleural and peritoneal effusion cytology: Does it differentiate between metastatic adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells?

Immunocytochemistry of effusions: Processing and commonly used immunomarkers

Definitive cytopathological interpretation of some of the effusion fluids may not be possible based on cytomorphological evaluation alone. As discussed in other reviews, this is due to various reasons specifically applicable to effusion fluids including remarkably wide morphologic spectrum of reactive mesothelial cells overlapping with some well to moderately differentiated metastatic carcinoma. The challenge is subject to various factors including level of interpreter training or experience, institutional demographics (such as type of prevalent diseases, predominant sex and age group), technical advances in ancillary support, and expertise in cytopreparatory processing. In such cases immunohistochemistry performed on cell-block sections is simple objective adjunct with or without other ancillary techniques. Ongoing increase in number of immunomarkers along with rabbit monoclonal antibodies with relatively higher affinity is further refining this field. SCIP (subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern) approach, discussed as separate dedicated review article, facilitates refined interpretation of immunoreactivity pattern in coordinate manner on various serial sections of cell-blocks. However, many variables such as delay after specimen collection, specimen processing related factors including fixation and storage; ambient conditions under which paraffin blocks are archived (for retrospective testing); antigen retrieval method; duration of antigen retrieval step; antibody clone and dilution; and antibody application time are common with application of immunohistochemistry in other areas. This review is dedicated to highlight technical aspects including processing of effusion specimens for optimum immunocytochemical evaluation along with commonly used immunomarkers in effusion cytopathology. This review focuses on the technical and general information about various immunomarkers.

Immunochemistry in the work-up of mesothelioma and its differential diagnosis and mimickers

The differential diagnosis in cellular effusions with cytological atypia often includes malignant mesothelioma (MM), reactive mesothelial proliferation, and malignancies of metastatic origin, particularly carcinomas. The International Reporting System for Serous Fluid recently established guidelines for reporting MM. In conjunction with the cytomorphologic evaluation, the role of immunochemistry (IC) was emphasized as a very useful tool in the workup of serous fluids, especially with the availability of novel markers. Utilizing a panel of markers, IC allows the characterization of the cells, whether mesothelial or not, and when mesothelial origin is established, IC can frequently assist in delineating its benign or malignant nature. IC can also confirm metastatic disease, allowing the identification of the primary origin in most cases. This review summarizes the current status of IC and its role in the diagnosis of MM and its differential diagnosis in serous fluids.

Utility of Claudin-4 versus BerEP4 and B72.3 in pleural fluids with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Lung adenocarcinoma (LADC) is the most common occult primary in patients presenting with a malignant pleural effusion. Distinguishing metastatic LADC from reactive mesothelial cells (RMC) and malignant mesothelioma (MM) based on morphology alone has been a persistent diagnostic challenge in cytopathology. Claudin-4, a major functional constituent of tight junctions, has been shown to help distinguish LADC from RMC and MM in surgical specimens. Our goal was to further validate and assess the utility of Claudin-4 in comparison to BerEP4 and B72.3 in malignant effusions with a focus on metastatic LADC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 58 pleural effusions (40 LADC, 10 RCM, and 8 MM). Immunohistochemistry was performed using Claudin-4, Ber-EP4, and B72.3 on cell blocks. Staining patterns, quantity of tumor cells, and intensity of staining (weak, moderate, or strong) were assessed.

RESULTS

All cases of LADC were positive for Claudin-4 with an overall sensitivity of 100% (40 of 40) and specificity of 100% (18 of 18). In addition, Claudin-4 showed the highest quantity and quality of staining with 3+ staining intensity in 73% (29 of 40) of cases, compared with 35% (14 of 40) of cases using BerEP4 and 52% (21 of 40) of cases using B72.3. The sensitivity and specificity for BerEP4 were 90% and 78%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for B72.3 were 87.5% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, Claudin-4 performed superiorly compared to BerEP4 and B72.3 in distinguishing lung adenocarcinoma from RMC or MM in pleural effusions. Our results show Claudin-4 is a useful marker for distinguishing RMC and MM from lung adenocarcinoma, with high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (100%), compatible with studies shown in the literature.

The Role of Liquid Based Cytology and Ancillary Techniques in the Peritoneal Washing Analysis: Our Institutional Experience

Background

The cytological analysis of peritoneal effusions serves as a diagnostic and prognostic aid for either primary or metastatic diseases. Among the different cytological preparations, liquid based cytology (LBC) represents a feasible and reliable method ensuring also the application of ancillary techniques (i.e immunocytochemistry-ICC and molecular testing).

Methods

We recorded 10348 LBC peritoneal effusions between January 2000 and December 2014. They were classified as non-diagnostic (ND), negative for malignancy-NM, atypical-suspicious for malignancy-SM and positive for malignancy-PM.

Results

The cytological diagnosis included 218 ND, 9.035 NM, 213 SM and 882 PM. A total of 8048 (7228 NM, 115SM, 705 PM) cases with histological follow-up were included. Our NM included 21 malignant and 7207 benign histological diagnoses. Our 820 SMs+PMs were diagnosed as 107 unknown malignancies (30SM and 77PM), 691 metastatic lesions (81SM and 610PM), 9 lymphomas (2SM and 7PM), 9 mesotheliomas (1SM and 8SM), 4 sarcomas (1SM and 3PM). Primary gynecological cancers contributed with 64% of the cases. We documented 97.4% sensitivity, 99.9% specificity, 98% diagnostic accuracy, 99.7% negative predictive value (NPV) and 99.7% positive predictive value (PPV). Furthermore, the morphological diagnoses were supported by either 173 conclusive ICC results or 50 molecular analyses. Specifically the molecular testing was performed for the EGFR and KRAS mutational analysis based on the previous or contemporary diagnoses of Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and colon carcinomas. We identified 10 EGFR in NSCCL and 7 KRAS mutations on LBC stored material.

Conclusions

Peritoneal cytology is an adjunctive tool in the surgical management of tumors mostly gynecological cancers. LBC maximizes the application of ancillary techniques such as ICC and molecular analysis with feasible diagnostic and predictive yields also in controversial cases.

Diagnostic Usefulness of Claudin-3 and Claudin-4 for Immunocytochemical Differentiation between Metastatic Adenocarcinoma Cells and Reactive Mesothelial Cells in Effusion Cell Blocks

OBJECTIVE

Claudin-3 and claudin-4 have recently been reported as promising targets for the detection and diagnosis of cancer. This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic value of claudin-3 and claudin-4 immunoreactivity to distinguish metastatic adenocarcinoma cells (MAC) from reactive mesothelial cells (RMC) in effusions.

STUDY DESIGN

Claudin-3 and claudin-4 immunocytochemical staining was performed on 234 cell block specimens, including 194 malignant effusions with MAC and 40 benign effusions with RMC. Any degree of membranous staining was considered positive.

RESULTS

Claudin-3 was positive in 190 (97.9%) out of 194 cases with MAC and in 3 (7.5%) out of 40 cases with RMC. Claudin-4 immunoreactivity was seen in all 194 (100%) cases with MAC and in 11 (27.5%) out of 40 cases with RMC. In all claudin-3- or claudin-4-positive RMC samples, the area of positive staining was <25% of the cells. Claudin-3 and claudin-4 efficiently discriminated between MAC and RMC (p < 0.001 for both), and claudin-3 was more specific than claudin-4 in differentiating between MAC and RMC (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that claudin-3 and claudin-4 are good candidates to be included as MAC markers in the panel of antibodies to distinguish MAC from RMC in effusion specimens.