Reply to The use of immunohistochemistry to distinguish reactive mesothelial cells from malignant mesothelioma in cytologic effusions

The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology: How to Incorporate Molecular Data in Cytopathology Reports

Serous effusion cytology is widely employed in the initial evaluation of the etiology of effusions with a high diagnostic sensitivity. To standardize practices, The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytology (TIS) was developed following best international practices, the most up-to-date literature, and expert consensus. In the context of this system, ancillary techniques play an important role. Besides defining basic principles in laboratory specimen handling, adequacy criteria, and a standardized reporting terminology with five diagnostic categories, TIS provides an actionable framework for using immunohistochemical and molecular testing in effusion samples, namely, in atypical, suspicious of malignant samples. For diagnostic purposes, these tests may be employed to distinguish between a primary and secondary neoplasm, to confirm a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma vs. reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, and to correctly classify and determine the primary location of a metastasis. Theranostic molecular tests may also be used for these samples to evaluate potential therapeutic targets. Pathologists play a central role in guiding this process by determining adequacy and selecting appropriate ancillary tests. The activity in this area of research should increase in the near future as new therapeutic targets are discovered and new drugs enter the clinical practice.

Utility of Survivin, BAP1, and Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in distinguishing epithelioid mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia

Histological distinction between epithelioid mesothelioma (EM) and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH) can be challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic utility of Survivin, Ki-67, and loss of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) expressions in distinguishing EM from RMH using immunohistochemistry. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens from 78 cases of EM and 80 cases of RMH were immunohistochemically examined for Survivin, BAP1, and Ki-67. In addition, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed to establish the cut-off values for Survivin and Ki-67 labelling indices. Survivin (cut-off value: 5%) had 67.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity, while Ki-67 (cut-off value: 10%) had 85.1% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity, and BAP1 had 66.2% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the differentiation of EM from RMH. Among the combinations of two markers, the combination of Survivin and BAP1 (Survivin-positive and/or BAP1-loss finding) had the highest diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity: 89.8%; specificity: 100%; accuracy: 95.3%). We recommend using the combination of Survivin and BAP1 to distinguish EM from RMH.