The diagnostic implications of variable cytokeratin expression in mesotheliomas

Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Mesothelioma: 2023 Update of the Consensus Statement From the International Mesothelioma Interest Group

CONTEXT.—

Mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose.

OBJECTIVE.—

To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma.

DATA SOURCES.—

Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with expertise in mesothelioma contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.

CONCLUSIONS.—

There was consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) histomorphologic diagnosis of mesothelial tumors, including distinction of epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma; recognition of morphologic variants and patterns; and recognition of common morphologic pitfalls; (2) molecular pathogenesis of mesothelioma; (3) application of immunohistochemical markers to establish mesothelial lineage and distinguish mesothelioma from common morphologic differentials; (4) application of ancillary studies to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations, including BAP1 and MTAP immunostains; novel immunomarkers such as Merlin and p53; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for homozygous deletion of CDKN2A; and novel molecular assays; (5) practical recommendations for routine reporting of mesothelioma, including grading epithelioid mesothelioma and other prognostic parameters; (6) diagnosis of mesothelioma in situ; (7) cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma, including use of immunostains and molecular assays; and (8) features of nonmalignant peritoneal mesothelial lesions.

Utility of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Pleuropulmonary and Mediastinal Cancers: A Review and Update

CONTEXT.—

Immunohistochemistry has become a valuable ancillary tool for the accurate classification of pleuropulmonary and mediastinal neoplasms necessary for therapeutic decisions and predicting prognostic outcome. Diagnostic accuracy has significantly improved because of the continuous discoveries of tumor-associated biomarkers and the development of effective immunohistochemical panels.

OBJECTIVE.—

To increase the accuracy of diagnosis and classify pleuropulmonary neoplasms through immunohistochemistry.

DATA SOURCES.—

Literature review and the author's research data and personal practice experience.

CONCLUSIONS.—

This review article highlights that appropriately selecting immunohistochemical panels enables pathologists to effectively diagnose most primary pleuropulmonary neoplasms and differentiate primary lung tumors from a variety of metastatic tumors to the lung. Knowing the utilities and pitfalls of each tumor-associated biomarker is essential to avoid potential diagnostic errors.

Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma 2017 Update of the Consensus Statement From the International Mesothelioma Interest Group

CONTEXT

- Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose.

OBJECTIVE

- To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM.

DATA SOURCES

- Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with an interest and expertise in the field contributed to this update. Reference material included up-to-date, peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.

CONCLUSIONS

- There was discussion and consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) recognition of the key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid MM, (7) use of molecular markers in the diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels employed is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Depending on the morphology, immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers for mesothelial differentiation and for lesions considered in the differential diagnosis. Immunohistochemical markers should have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic and membranous markers). Selected molecular markers are now being used to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations. These guidelines are meant to be a practical diagnostic reference for the pathologist; however, some new pathologic predictors of prognosis and response to therapy are also included.

Application of Immunohistochemistry in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary and Pleural Neoplasms

CONTEXT

- A vast majority of neoplasms arising from lung or pleura are initially diagnosed based on the histologic evaluation of small transbronchial, endobronchial, or needle core biopsies. Although most diagnoses can be determined by morphology alone, immunohistochemistry can be a valuable diagnostic tool in the workup of problematic cases.

OBJECTIVE

- To provide a practical approach in the interpretation and immunohistochemical selection of lung/pleura-based neoplasms obtained from small biopsy samples.

DATA SOURCES

- A literature review of previously published articles and the personal experience of the authors were used in this review article.

CONCLUSION

- Immunohistochemistry is a useful diagnostic tool in the workup of small biopsies from the lung and pleura sampled by small biopsy techniques.

Guidelines for pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma: 2012 update of the consensus statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group

CONTEXT

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose.

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM.

DATA SOURCES

Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with an interest in the field contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinction of benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiation of epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. It is recommended that immunohistochemical markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist.

Guidelines for pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma: a consensus statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group

CONTEXT

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose.

OBJECTIVE

To develop practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM.

DATA SOURCES

A pathology panel was convened at the International Mesothelioma Interest Group biennial meeting (October 2006). Pathologists with an interest in the field also contributed after the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the differential diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group recommends that markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist.

Pulmonary Sarcomatous Tumors

Context.—Sarcomatous pulmonary neoplasms are a rare and diagnostically challenging group of tumors. Primary pulmonary sarcomas must be distinguished from the more frequent occurrence of sarcoma metastatic to the lung, primary pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma, and diffuse malignant mesothelioma involving the lung. In current practice, the general availability of ancillary diagnostic techniques, such as immunohistochemistry and molecular analysis, can reliably classify many sarcomatoid lesions.

Objective.—To review the literature and report on additional primary material about the application of immunohistochemistry and molecular analysis in the differential diagnosis pulmonary sarcomatous neoplasms.

Data Sources.—Literature review of relevant articles indexed in PubMed (National Library of Medicine) between 1961 and 2007 and primary material from the author's institution.

Conclusions.—This review discusses specific criteria for the diagnosis of primary lung sarcomas and offers a practical approach to excluding other sarcoma-like lesions involving the lung. The pathologist has an essential role in evaluating these tumors and will often be the first to suggest an unusual, alternative diagnosis, which may have significant implications for patient care, therapy, and prognosis.

Anti-mesothelial markers in sarcomatoid mesothelioma and other spindle cell neoplasms

AIMS

To undertake a comparative evaluation of three antimesothelial markers (thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6 and calretinin) with broad spectrum cytokeratin (AE1/AE3) in differentiating between sarcomatoid mesothelioma and a spectrum of spindle cell neoplasms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-one malignant sarcomatoid mesotheliomas were studied. Calretinin expression was focally identified in 12 (39%) tumours and thrombomodulin and cytokeratin 5/6 immunoreactivity was seen in nine (29%) cases. In comparison there was strong diffuse cytoplasmic reactivity with the broad spectrum cytokeratin (AE1/AE3) in 24 of 31 (77%) tumours. Thirty mixed spindle cells neoplasms were studied. No calretinin expression was identified in any case. Thrombomodulin immunoreactivity was identified in four (16%) cases (two angiosarcomas, two high-grade sarcomas, not otherwise specified). Cytokeratin 5/6 expression was seen in one high-grade pulmonary sarcoma originally termed malignant fibrous histiocytoma. None of the antimesothelial markers was expressed in the four spindle cell carcinomas studied. In contrast, broad spectrum cytokeratin was diffusely expressed in all four spindle cell carcinomas (three pulmonary, one renal), both synovial sarcomas, both malignant mixed Müllerian tumours, one of three pulmonary leiomyosarcomas and two of nine sarcomas, not otherwise specified.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunohistochemistry has a more limited role in the diagnosis and distinction of sarcomatoid mesothelioma from other spindle cell neoplasms. The combination of a broad spectrum cytokeratin with calretinin combines both high sensitivity (77% for AE1/AE3) with high specificity (100% for calretinin) for sarcomatoid mesothelioma and can be diagnostically useful. The mesothelial markers, thrombomodulin and cytokeratin 5/6, are not useful alone in the diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma as each shows insufficient antibody sensitivity, although together they complement calretinin.

Differentiation of adenocarcinoma of the lung and malignant mesothelioma: predictive value and reproducibility of immunoreactive antibodies

A panel of antibodies against keratins, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), epithelial antigen (Ber-EP4), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tumour-associated glycoprotein (B72.3), vimentin and LeuM1 was applied to sections of adenocarcinoma of the lung and malignant mesothelioma in a randomized design. The proportion of stained tumour cells within each section was estimated independently in five categories by three pathologists (no positive tumour cells, 1-10%, 11-33%, 34-66% and more than 67% positive tumour cells). The kappa values representing the chance corrected interobserver agreement for the different antibodies in such a five group assessment were between 0.38 and 0.72. In two group assessment the kappa values were between 0.53 and 0.94. Nosological sensitivity and nosological specificity were calculated for all antibodies, and diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity (predictive values) were calculated for the Ber-EP4, CEA, B72.3, LeuM1 and vimentin. The difference between nosological sensitivity and nosologic specificity and the clinically relevant predictive values of positive and negative tests were demonstrated. In respect of the reproducibility and the diagnostic power defined by the predictive values, we demonstrated that a panel of antibodies, including CEA, Ber-EP4 and B72.3 and, to a lesser degree, LeuM1 and vimentin is applicable for the histopathological distinction between adenocarcinoma of the lung and malignant mesotheliomas. Before introduction of new diagnostic tests, including new antibodies, the prevalence of the tested tumours should be estimated. Nosological sensitivity and nosological specificity should be converted to predictive values.