SOX6 Expression Is Sensitive for Peritoneal Epithelioid Malignant Mesothelioma, But Not Specific in the Differential Diagnosis With Tubo-ovarian Serous Neoplasia

Primary peritoneal malignant mesothelioma (MM) can demonstrate morphologic overlap with low-grade and high-grade tubo-ovarian serous neoplasms; it is also biologically and prognostically distinct from benign mesothelial proliferations. Currently, there is no single biomarker that can definitively distinguish these neoplasms. Sex-determining region Y box 6 (SOX6) immunohistochemistry has been recently described to differentiate pleural epithelioid MM from lung adenocarcinoma, but it has not been evaluated in the peritoneum. SOX6 immunohistochemistry was performed on 43 peritoneal epithelioid MM, 7 peritoneal biphasic MM, 5 well-differentiated papillary mesotheliomas, 5 serous borderline tumors, 29 low-grade serous carcinomas (LGSCs), 20 high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSCs), and 25 cases of peritoneal reactive mesothelial hyperplasia. Quantitative SOX6 expression in epithelioid MM (median, 100% of tumor cells) was significantly greater than in LGSC/serous borderline tumor (median, 90%; P=0.004) and HGSC (median, 45%; P=0.0001). However, when SOX6 is expression is defined as ≥10% of tumor cells, there was no significant difference in the rate of SOX6 positivity between epithelioid MM (41/43, 95%), LGSC (28/29, 97%; P=1.0), and HGSC (17/20, 85%; P=0.16). Quantitative extent of SOX6 expression in epithelioid MM was significantly greater than in biphasic MM (median, 0%; P=0.0001), well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma (median, 20%; P=0.001), and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (median, 20%; P=0.0001), but not significantly different from flat quiescent mesothelium (median, 90%; P=0.82). SOX6 immunohistochemistry is 95% sensitive for peritoneal epithelioid MM, but is also consistently expressed in LGSC and HGSC, negating its usefulness in this common differential diagnosis. SOX6 also shows variable expression across the spectrum of reactive, benign neoplastic, and malignant mesothelial lesions of the peritoneum, and does not appear to be diagnostically useful in distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations.

Expression of Calretinin, Marker of Mesothelial Differentiation, in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Potential Diagnostic Pitfall

OBJECTIVE

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the most common causes of "peritoneal carcinomatosis" and has an insidious growth pattern. Thus, it falls into the differential diagnosis of other peritoneal malignancies including malignant mesothelioma. Recently, we have encountered an undifferentiated pancreatic carcinoma presenting with peritoneal disease and exhibiting immunoreactivity to calretinin, mimicking mesothelioma. In this study, we explored the incidence of calretinin expression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Calretinin immunohistochemical staining was performed on the tissue microarrays (TMAs), which were created using three 0.6 mm diameter punches per tumor (n=113). Distribution and intensity of expression were evaluated.

RESULTS

The TMAs contained 86 well/moderately differentiated and 27 poorly differentiated/undifferentiated carcinomas. Calretinin was positive in nine tumors (8%); six with diffuse and strong staining, three with focal and/or weak staining. The incidence of calretinin expression was 15% in poorly differentiated/undifferentiated carcinomas (vs. 6% in well/moderately differentiated carcinomas, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, especially when poorly differentiated/undifferentiated, may be diffusely and strongly positive for calretinin creating a potential diagnostic challenge with malignant mesothelioma. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using this marker to explore a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Tumors expressing calretinin without other mesothelial markers should prompt a careful evaluation of the morphologic and immunohistochemical features to exclude other malignancies. If the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is considered, ductal differentiation can be demonstrated by using additional immunohistochemical markers such as mucin-related glycoproteins (MUC1, MUC5AC) and/or oncoproteins (CEA, B72.3, CA125).

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.

Large-scale analysis of BAP1 expression reveals novel associations with clinical and molecular features of malignant pleural mesothelioma

BRCA1‐associated protein‐1 (BAP1) expression is commonly lost in several tumors including malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Presence or absence of immunohistochemical BAP1 nuclear staining in tumor cells is currently used for differential diagnosis of MPM. In this study, a large cohort of 596 MPM tumors with available clinical data was analyzed to examine associations of BAP1 staining pattern with clinical and molecular features that may reflect the impact of BAP1 mutation on MPM biology. Cases were classified according to the BAP1 staining pattern of tumor cells. Exome and RNA‐sequencing data were available for subsets of cases. Levels of mRNA encoding claudin 15 (CLDN15) and vimentin (VIM) were determined using RT‐qPCR on 483 cases to estimate the relative proportions of epithelial‐like and mesenchymal‐like components in each tumor. Four BAP1 staining patterns were observed: single‐pattern nuclear staining (36%), single‐pattern cytoplasmic staining (25%), single‐pattern absent staining (12%), and combinations of these staining patterns (27%). This study confirmed prior reports that nuclear BAP1 is more frequently associated with wild‐type BAP1 and sarcomatoid histology. However, no associations between BAP1 staining pattern(s) and mutations in specific protein domains and/or mutation type were observed. BAP1 staining patterns were significantly associated (p < 0.001) with BAP1 gene expression, MPM histologic subtypes, molecular clusters, and markers of epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition. Frequent observation of combinations of BAP1 staining patterns in MPM tumors indicated intra‐tumoral heterogeneity of BAP1 status. Cytoplasmic BAP1 staining was identified as a putative indicator of favorable prognosis in non‐epithelioid MPM. In conclusion, novel significant associations among different BAP1 staining patterns and subgroups of MPM tumors were observed, suggesting that the role of BAP1 in tumor progression may be more complex than its presumed tumor suppressor function. Cytoplasmic staining was identified as a putative indicator of favorable prognosis in non‐epithelioid MPM, potentially addressing a critical need in clinical decision‐making in this disease. © 2020 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.