Reliably making the primary diagnosis of mesothelioma utilizing serous fluid cytology specimens: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of mesothelioma has historically been challenging, especially on serous fluid cytology (SFC). Distinguishing between reactive and neoplastic mesothelial cells can be difficult on cytomorphology alone. However, additional ancillary tests, such as BRCA1 associated protein-1 immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization for cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A deletion, can provide a sensitive and highly specific method of proving malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SFC specimens diagnosed as mesothelioma, suspicious for mesothelioma (SM), and atypical mesothelial cells (AMCs) since 2012 were identified by querying the laboratory information system. Clinical data and pathologic parameters were gathered.

RESULTS

One hundred ten cases of mesothelioma, SM, and AMC were identified. Of these, 61 cases had a definitive diagnosis of mesothelioma on SFC. Average age at SFC diagnosis was 67 years (26-87 years), with most patients being male (67%). Out of the 61 cases, 11 cases (18%) had an initial diagnosis of mesothelioma made on SFC specimens, with 5 of these 11 cases being in patients that never received a histologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. Ancillary studies were utilized in all 11 cases. An initial diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma was made on SFC in 9 cases (15%). For 6 of these 9 cases, the SFC diagnosis was the sole diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma without a companion histologic diagnosis. In addition, 15 cases were diagnosed as SM, with 11 of these cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis. Thirty-four cases were diagnosed as AMC, with 27 cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of mesothelioma can be reliably made on SFC with the appropriate cytomorphology criteria and/or confirmatory ancillary testing.

MesoGraph: Automatic profiling of mesothelioma subtypes from histological images

Mesothelioma is classified into three histological subtypes, epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic, according to the relative proportions of epithelioid and sarcomatoid tumor cells present. Current guidelines recommend that the sarcomatoid component of each mesothelioma is quantified, as a higher percentage of sarcomatoid pattern in biphasic mesothelioma shows poorer prognosis. In this work, we develop a dual-task graph neural network (GNN) architecture with ranking loss to learn a model capable of scoring regions of tissue down to cellular resolution. This allows quantitative profiling of a tumor sample according to the aggregate sarcomatoid association score. Tissue is represented by a cell graph with both cell-level morphological and regional features. We use an external multicentric test set from Mesobank, on which we demonstrate the predictive performance of our model. We additionally validate our model predictions through an analysis of the typical morphological features of cells according to their predicted score.

New Immunohistochemical Markers for Pleural Mesothelioma Subtyping

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) comprises three main subtypes: epithelioid, biphasic and sarcomatoid, which have different impacts on prognosis and treatment definition. However, PM subtyping can be complex given the inter- and intra-tumour morphological heterogeneity. We aim to use immunohistochemistry (IHC) to evaluate five markers (Mesothelin, Claudin-15, Complement Factor B, Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor 1 and p21-activated Kinase 4), whose encoding genes have been previously reported as deregulated among PM subtypes. Immunohistochemical expressions were determined in a case series of 73 PMs, and cut-offs for the epithelioid and non-epithelioid subtypes were selected. Further validation was performed on an independent cohort (30 PMs). For biphasic PM, the percentage of the epithelioid component was assessed, and IHC evaluation was also performed on the individual components separately. Mesothelin and Claudin-15 showed good sensitivity (79% and 84%) and specificity (84% and 73%) for the epithelioid subtype. CFB and PAK4 had inferior performance, with higher sensitivity (89% and 84%) but lower specificity (64% and 36%). In the biphasic group, all markers showed different expression when comparing epithelioid with sarcomatoid areas. Mesothelin, Claudin-15 and CFB can be useful in subtype discrimination. PAI1 and PAK4 can improve component distinction in biphasic PM.

Utility of BerEp4/calretinin and desmin/epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) dual immunocytochemical staining in effusion cytology

BACKGROUND

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) is typically diagnosed late during the disease. Earlier detection can increase the chance of effective therapy. Recurrent pleural effusions are the earliest symptoms displaying an array of cytomorphological changes from reactive atypia to malignancy. Diagnosis is possible on effusion cytology by applying molecular and immunocytochemical markers, the main difficulty being when to suspect PM and to differentiate PM from metastatic adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial proliferations.

METHODS

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of two immunocytochemical dual stains (BerEp4/Calretinin and Desmin/Epithelial Membrane Antigen (EMA)) on 149 ethanol-fixed cytospin preparation as an initial step to solve the mentioned diagnostic difficulty. The immunocytochemical reactivity pattern was evaluated by two independent investigators. The final diagnosis corresponded to PM (n = 20), metastatic adenocarcinoma (n = 83), and mesotheliosis (n = 46) in these cases.

RESULTS

Calretinin had 99% specificity and 98% sensitivity for indicating a mesothelial phenotype, while BerEp4 distinguished the adenocarcinoma cases with 98% specificity and 99% sensitivity. EMA displayed 96% specificity and 99% sensitivity in malignant cases, while Desmin without EMA present showed 99% specificity and 96% sensitivity for indicating benign mesothelial proliferation.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretation of the four immunoreactions is improved when performed as dual stains. The dual staining is a useful tool in the initial handling of atypical effusions and guides the subsequent choice of antibody panels for more detailed subclassification of malignant effusions.

The cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma: are we there yet?

INTRODUCTION

Mesothelioma is a rare but highly aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis that frequently present with recurrent effusions. Establishing the diagnosis by cytology can lead to early diagnosis and treatment and consequently improve prognosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review examines the cytological diagnosis of mesothelioma in the context of its historical and morphologic evolution and provides an update of the current reporting systems. Clues to identify the mesothelial and malignant nature of the sample are detailed as well as the supporting ancillary tests.

RESULTS

Cytologically, the samples are overwhelmingly cellular and malignancy is recognized by both architectural and cytological atypia. Numerous variably sized clusters and enlarged cells are easily identified, some with papillary architecture and collagen cores. Recognizing the mesothelial nature of the cells and supportive immunostains are essential to rule out the differential diagnosis of metastatic carcinomas and reactive mesothelium. Current ancillary tests such as homozygous deletion of CDKN2A, loss of BRCA1-associated protein, and methylthioadenosine phosphorylase expression can provide further support of malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

At this time with the aid of current ancillary tests and in the hands of cytopathologists with adequate experience with the interpretation of effusions, the diagnosis of mesothelioma can be established with accuracy in most cases.

The highlights of the 15th international conference of the international mesothelioma interest group - Do molecular concepts challenge the traditional approach to pathological mesothelioma diagnosis?

Pathology plays an important role in diagnosing mesothelioma since radiological and clinical findings alone cannot distinguish mesothelioma reliably from its many mimics. The long-held gold standard for pathological diagnosis requires a tissue biopsy that, in addition to mesothelial phenotype, demonstrates invasion, but this is challenged by the WHO recognition of mesothelioma in situ (MIS) and concurrent acknowledgement of all mesotheliomas as malignant. Tumor sampling and ancillary techniques are of paramount importance for diagnosis of MIS. Standardisation of these techniques, cut-off points and terminology, and an updated staging system are urgently required. These clinically relevant issues and the impact of new developments were illustrated at the pathology session of 15th meeting of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. It was reported that combination of losses in p16 nuclear expression, with cut-off ≤ 1%, and cytoplasmic MTAP with cut-off ≥ 30% demonstrated increased specificity (96%) and high sensitivity (86%) for CDKN2A HD detection. Otherwise, the combination of p16 IHC and CDKN2A HD may improve prognosis. The potential usefulness of pleural effusions for early diagnosis was demonstrated in a retrospective study investigating pleural effusions had been diagnosed as benign prior to mesothelioma diagnosis. Alterations of BAP1 (IHC) and CDKN2A (FISH) were detectable 2 or more years prior diagnosis. Moreover, analysis of gene expression profiles in cytology samples by principal component analysis discriminated reactive hyperpasia from epitheliod mesothelioma. Early diagnosis, including cytology diagnosis, is being acyively investigated. Since no treatment recommendations exist for MIS, pathologists recognise the need for international collaborations to fully characterise this rare entity. Clear communication with the clinical teams is required to ensure optimum patient care. The data reported in this meeting are encouraging and open avenues for further work that will allow even earlier diagnosis and better characterisation of mesothelioma progression, based on changes in gene expression, including epigenetic changes.

Diagnostic and Prognostic Utility of the Extracellular Vesicles Subpopulations Present in Pleural Effusion

Extracellular vesicles (EVs), comprising exosomes, microvesicles, and apoptotic bodies, are released by all cells into the extracellular matrix and body fluids, where they play important roles in intercellular communication and matrix remodeling in various pathological conditions. Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a primary tumor of mesothelial origin, predominantly related to asbestos exposure. The detection of MPM at an early stage and distinguishing it from benign conditions and metastatic adenocarcinomas (AD) is sometimes challenging. Pleural effusion is often the first available biological material and an ideal source for characterizing diagnostic and prognostic factors. Specific proteins have previously been identified as diagnostic markers in effusion, but it is not currently known whether these are associated with vesicles or released in soluble form. Here, we study and characterize tumor heterogeneity and extracellular vesicle diversity in pleural effusion as diagnostic or prognostic markers for MPM. We analyzed extracellular vesicles and soluble proteins from 27 pleural effusions, which were collected and processed at the department of pathology and cytology at Karolinska University Hospital, representing three different patient groups, MPM (n = 9), benign (n = 6), and AD (n = 12). The vesicles were fractionated into apoptotic bodies, microvesicles, and exosomes by differential centrifugation and characterized by nanoparticle tracking analysis and Western blotting. Multiplex bead-based flow cytometry analysis showed that exosomal markers were expressed differently on EVs present in different fractions. Further characterization of exosomes by a multiplex immunoassay (Luminex) showed that all soluble proteins studied were also present in exosomes, though the ratio of protein concentration present in supernatant versus exosomes varied. The proportion of Angiopoietin-1 present in exosomes was generally higher in benign compared to malignant samples. The corresponding ratios of Mesothelin, Galectin-1, Osteopontin, and VEGF were higher in MPM effusions compared to those in the benign group. These findings demonstrate that relevant diagnostic markers can be recovered from exosomes.

The concept of mesothelioma in situ, with consideration of its potential impact on cytology diagnosis

Diffuse malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an incurable tumour of the serosal membranes, which is often caused by exposure to asbestos and commonly diagnosed at advanced stage. Malignant mesothelioma in situ (MMIS) is now included as diagnostic category by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, our international survey of 34 pulmonary pathologists with an interest in MM diagnosis highlights inconsistency regarding how the diagnosis is being made by experts, despite published guidelines. Whilst the WHO restricts the diagnosis to surgical samples, the very concept has implication for cytological diagnosis, which is already regarded as controversial in itself by some. MMIS is currently only applicable as precursor to MM with an epithelioid component, and raises the possibility for different molecular pathways for different histological MM subtypes. The clinical implications of MMIS at this stage are uncertain, but aggressive therapies are being initiated in some instances. Based on the results of the survey we here present a critical appraisal of the concept, its clinical and conceptual implications and provide practice suggestions for diagnosis. A low threshold for ancillary testing is suggested. The designations of 'malignant mesothelioma, cannot exclude MMIS' or 'atypical mesothelial proliferation with molecular indicators of malignancy, so-called MMIS' could be used on cytology samples, adding 'no evidence of invasion in sample provided' for surgical samples. Clinical and radiological correlation are integral to diagnosis and best done at multidisciplinary meetings. Finally, collaborative studies are required to improve our understanding of MMIS.

Role of Cytology in the Current Guidelines for Malignant Mesothelioma: Largest Study from India

INTRODUCTION

Cytology provides crucial window for early diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) since it is often the first and easily available material for evaluation, resulting in early treatment. Still, its role is overlooked in the current treatment guidelines. The aim of this study is to determine the sensitivity of cytomorphology and role of subsequent ancillary techniques in diagnosing MM.

METHODS

This is a 5-year retrospective analysis of MM in the tertiary oncology center to determine sensitivity of cytomorphology and subsequent role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in final diagnosis of MM according to the guidelines for cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma (GCDMM) laid by International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Cytomorphology and immunocytochemistry from effusions and fine needle aspirations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two of 128 cases of MM had cytology and cytomorphological criteria described in GCDMM were fulfilled in 61.3% cases. Architectural atypia was useful in identifying cases with low cytological atypia. Overall sensitivity of cytomorphology was 73.01%. Sensitivity of effusion cytology was 77.8%. Subsequent IHC on cell blocks revealed the sensitivity as 100% for mesothelin, calretinin, and cytokeratin 5/6; 87.5% for thrombomodulin; and 50% for WT1, while CEA and TTF1 showed 100% specificity. Treatment was given based on final diagnosis of MM given after IHC on cytology material in only 25.8% cases. However, it was possible in additional 35.5% cases. Mean survival was 10 months when diagnosed by cytology, compared to 7 months by histology.

CONCLUSIONS

Rather than ignoring the role of cytology in the diagnosis and treatment guidelines for MM, it is important to understand its strengths and limitations. Standardized guidelines in future can play an important role in more streamlined communication between cytopathologist and clinician.

A challenging diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma with osteosarcomatous differentiation metastasizing to bone

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an insidious primary neoplasm of the pleura that can be challenging to diagnose and is commonly considered to be only locally invasive. We present the case of a 74-year-old male who presented with clinical features of MPM but from whom pleural fluid and biopsies initially suggested benign pathology. He later developed diffuse bony metastases and re-examination of pleural biopsies using modern immunohistochemistry and molecular testing revealed a diagnosis of sarcomatoid and desmoplastic MPM with heterologous osteosarcomatous differentiation. This case not only demonstrates the rare potential of skeletal metastasis of MPM, but also highlights the importance of recognizing the utility of modern diagnostic tests and their potential to prevent the need for unnecessary invasive procedures. To our knowledge this is the first description of this rare histological sub-type presenting with skeletal metastases.

The Use of Immunohistochemistry, Fluorescence in situ Hybridization, and Emerging Epigenetic Markers in the Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM): A Review

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive asbestos related disease that is generally considered to be difficult to diagnose, stage and treat. The diagnostic process is continuing to evolve and requires highly skilled pathology input, and generally an extensive list of biomarkers for definitive diagnosis. Diagnosis of MPM requires histological evidence of invasion by malignant mesothelial cells often confirmed by various immunohistochemical biomarkers in order to separate it from pleural metastatic carcinoma. Often when invasion of neoplastic mesothelial cells into adjacent tissue is not apparent, further immunohistochemical testing - namely BAP1 and MTAP, as well as FISH testing for loss of p16 (CDKN2A) are used to separate reactive mesothelial proliferation due to benign processes, from MPM. Various combinations of these markers, such as BAP1 and/or MTAP immunohistochemistry alongside FISH testing for loss of p16, have shown excellent sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of MPM. Additionally, over the recent years, research into epigenetic marker use in the diagnosis of MPM has gained momentum. Although still in their research stages, various markers in DNA methylation, long non-coding RNA, micro RNA, circular RNA, and histone modifications have all been found to support diagnosis of MPM with generally good sensitivity and specificity. Many of these studies are however, limited by small sample sizes or other study limitations and further research into the area would be beneficial. Epigenetic markers show promise for use in the future to facilitate the diagnosis of MPM.

Putative Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in situ (MPMIS) with Sequential Acquisition of Genomic Alterations on Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Examination

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and deadly disease. A precursor in situ lesion, malignant pleural mesothelioma in situ (MPMIS), has recently been proposed. On cytological examination, the distinction between reactive and malignant mesothelial cells is often challenging, and sometimes even impossible without ancillary methods. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for detection of 9p21 deletion is a powerful diagnostic tool in this context, both in histological and in cytological specimens. Here, we present a case of MPM with initial presentation as a putative MPMIS with disomic chromosomal pattern and homozygous 9p21 deletion with subsequent development of an aneuploid pattern after whole genome duplication during tumor progression.

Multiplex Soluble Biomarker Analysis from Pleural Effusion

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive and therapy resistant pleural malignancy that is caused by asbestos exposure. MPM is associated with poor prognosis and a short patient survival. The survival time is strongly influenced by the subtype of the tumor. Dyspnea and accumulation of pleural effusion in the pleural cavity are common symptoms of MPM. The diagnostic distinction from other malignancies and reactive conditions is done using histopathology or cytopathology, always supported by immunohistochemistry, and sometimes also by analyses of soluble biomarkers in effusion supernatant. We evaluated the soluble angiogenesis related molecules as possible prognostic and diagnostic biomarkers for MPM by Luminex multiplex assay. Pleural effusion from 42 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), 36 patients with adenocarcinoma (AD) and 40 benign (BE) effusions were analyzed for 10 different analytes that, in previous studies, were associated with angiogenesis, consisting of Angiopoietin-1, HGF, MMP-7, Osteopontin, TIMP-1, Galectin, Mesothelin, NRG1-b1, Syndecan-1 (SDC-1) and VEGF by a Human Premixed Multi-Analyte Luminex kit. We found that shed SDC-1 and MMP-7 levels were significantly lower, whereas Mesothelin and Galectin-1 levels were significantly higher in malignant mesothelioma effusions, compared to adenocarcinoma. Galectin-1, HGF, Mesothelin, MMP-7, Osteopontin, shed SDC-1, NRG1-β1, VEGF and TIMP-1 were significantly higher in malignant pleural mesothelioma effusions compared to benign samples. Moreover, there is a negative correlation between Mesothelin and shed SDC-1 and positive correlation between VEGF, Angiopoietin-1 and shed SDC-1 level in the pleural effusion from malignant cases. Shed SDC-1 and VEGF have a prognostic value in malignant mesothelioma patients. Collectively, our data suggest that MMP-7, shed SDC-1, Mesothelin and Galectin-1 can be diagnostic and VEGF and SDC-1 prognostic markers in MPM patients. Additionally, Galectin-1, HGF, Mesothelin, MMP-7, Osteopontin, shed SDC-1 and TIMP-1 can be diagnostic for malignant cases.

Integrative approach to cytologic and molecular diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma

The global incidence of malignant mesothelioma (MM) causes considerable disease burden, suffering and health care costs. Beside preventive measures and ban the use of asbestos, early diagnosis would largely improve the chance of curative treatment. Current histologic criteria, however, requiring presence of invasion in the surrounding fatty tissue fail to identify MM in sufficiently early stage. Unilateral accumulation of pleural effusion is one of the earliest clinical manifestations of MM that occurs in approximately 90% of the patients. Therapeutic thoracocenthesis is necessary to remove the fluid and to relieve patients’ symptoms. This effusion is easily accessible and offers early and minimally invasive diagnosis by combining cytology with immunologic, molecular- and biomarker analyses. Typically, the fluid is rich in malignant cells and cell groups, but incipient stages of the disease may be difficult to recognize as the malignant cells can be masked by presence of inflammatory or reactive mesothelial cells. Recurrent, hemorrhagic and cell rich effusion should always be suspicious for MM and adequately prepared and analyzed to provide necessary information for subsequent therapy. Importantly, early detection of MM by integrating cytology and molecular approaches has high sensitivity and positive predictive value and has a major impact on patient survival. Thus, a conclusive positive MM cytology should lead to treatment without delay. This review summarizes molecular and diagnostic criteria of MM diagnosis.

Effusion cytology of malignant mesothelioma enables earlier diagnosis and recognizes patients with better prognosis

A conclusive diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) can be based on effusion cytology using the guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type MM. Briefly, the diagnosis is obtained when the mesothelial phenotype of malignant cells is established by ancillary techniques. This study is based on the comparison of the overall survival rates of patients with MM when diagnosed by effusion cytology, histopathology, or a combination of both. A total of 144 patients were diagnosed with epithelioid and mixed-type pleural MM at Karolinska University Hospital between 2004 and 2013. The diagnosis was obtained by histopathology in 74 cases and by cytological examination of pleural effusion in 70 cases. In 29 of the latter cases, a diagnostic biopsy was obtained simultaneously. A total of 104 patients received chemotherapy. All diagnoses were supported by clinical findings, including computer tomography scans. The median time between first symptoms and diagnosis was similar for cytology and histopathology. However, a delay of more than 6 months after first symptoms was seen in many patients in the histopathology group, resulting in late onset of treatment. The overall survival and proportion of long-term survival were significantly better for cases diagnosed by cytology. Similarly, a better survival, following a cytological diagnosis, was also seen in patients who were only provided the best supportive care. Accurate cytological diagnosis enables conclusive diagnosis of MM. Our finding enables the initiation of treatment as soon as the cytological diagnosis is established, avoiding further delay and deterioration of patient survival and possibilities for treatment.

Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma on Cytology: A Gene Expression Panel versus BRCA1-Associated Protein 1 and p16 Tests

Pleural effusions are among the first clinical manifestations of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and often constitute the only available material for diagnosis. Although an MPM diagnosis can be reliable on cytology, the reported sensitivity is low (30% to 75%). Particularly, it can be hard to discriminate epithelioid MPM, the most common histotype, from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (MH). Currently, BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) and CDKN2A (p16), evaluated by immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization, respectively, are the most valuable markers to discriminate MPM and MH. Both markers have a high specificity, but their sensitivity is not always satisfying, even when used together. We have recently developed a 117-gene expression panel, based on Nanostring technology, able to differentiate epithelioid MPM from MH pleural tissues better than BAP1 and p16. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy of the same panel on an independent retrospective cohort of 23 MPM and 11 MH pleural effusions (cell blocks and smears). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the panel were equal to 0.9565 and 1, respectively. Moreover, the panel performance was compared with BAP1 and p16 on 25 cell blocks. Sensitivity levels of gene panel, BAP1 alone, p16 alone, and BAP1 plus p16 were 1, 0.5882, 0.4706, and 0.7647, respectively. Specificity was always 1. Although further validation is needed, this gene panel could really facilitate patients' management, allowing a definitive MPM diagnosis directly on pleural effusions.

Guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma: Complementary statement from the international mesothelioma interest group, also endorsed by the international academy of cytology and the papanicolaou society of cytopathology. A proposal to be applauded and promoted but which requires updating

The guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma produced by the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and which are endorsed by the International Academy of Cytology and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology are reviewed and discussed. This (predominantly) evidence-based document provides a robust and useful framework for diagnosticians and guideline producers to emphasise and promote the value, power and role of cytology in mesothelioma diagnosis and management with comments and suggestions about how the guidelines can be updated and improved in the future.

Diagnostic value of GLUT-1 in distinguishing malignant mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial cells: a meta-analysis

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated the diagnostic value of glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) to distinguish malignant mesothelioma (MM) from reactive mesothelial cells (RMC), but the results are inconsistent. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of GLUT-1 in distinguishing MM from RMC.Methods: A systematical search was conducted until May 2019 in PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the quality of the eligible studies. The Stata15 and Review Manager5.3 software programmes were used to perform the meta-analysis.Results: A total of 24 studies, including 969 MM patients and 1080 RMC individuals were explored in the meta-analysis. The summary assessments revealed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81) and the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.98). The area under the summary ROC curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95).Conclusions: GLUT-1 is highly accurate to distinguish MM from RMC.

Management of cytological material, pre-analytical procedures and bio-banking in effusion cytopathology

Serous effusion fluid is one of the most commonly encountered specimens in routine cytopathology practice. It provides invaluable information about the patient and the clinical status; but to get the most of it, specimen handling and processing must be carried out properly. Cytomorphology is the basis of a successful analysis which should complemented by ancillary tests when needed. A wide spectrum of ancillary techniques - ranging from immunocytochemistry and flow cytometry to different assays of molecular pathology - can be applied to serous effusions. This article describes the acquisition and management of serous effusion fluids, methods for preservation and transportation, different techniques of cytopreparation, application of immunocytochemistry, flow cytometry, and fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), as well as DNA extraction for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and next generation sequencing (NGS). Principles of bio-banking of effusion samples are also discussed which is getting more important in correlation with the developments in personalized medicine.