Usefulness of p16/CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization and BAP1 immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of biphasic mesothelioma

Diagnostic Challenges in the Pathological Approach to Pleural Mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) still represents a complex diagnostic challenge for pathologists in routine practice. This diagnosis requires a multidisciplinary approach, and pathological evaluation is mandatory. The histopathological diagnosis is stepwise and should be based on morphological and immunohistochemical assessment, sometimes associated with molecular tests, and supported by clinical and radiological findings. A correct morphological approach aims to exclude pleural metastasis or benign mesothelial proliferations, which are the main differential diagnoses. While certain histological features are diagnostic of MPM, others are highly suggestive but not definitive. Immunohistochemistry plays a pivotal role, with a panel of both traditional and newer markers being used to assess mesothelial differentiation and to differentiate malignant from benign proliferations. In more challenging cases, molecular tests, such as fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) to detect CDKN2A deletion, can be helpful in distinguishing malignant from benign pleural lesions. This review summarizes the key morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features that should be considered when pleural biopsy samples are examined, with the aim of improving diagnostic accuracy in this complex area.

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.

The significance of BAP1 and MTAP/CDKN2A expression in well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour: a series of 21 cases and a review of the literature

The nomenclature and diagnostic criteria of well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour (WDPMT) have been changed in the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of thoracic tumours, and a new entity, mesothelioma in situ (MIS), introduced. Histologically these two entities may be similar. However, MIS is regarded as a precursor to invasive mesothelioma and requires demonstration of loss of BAP1 and/or MTAP/CDKN2A for diagnosis, whereas performance of these ancillary tests is desirable but not essential for a diagnosis of WDPMT, in which the significance of BAP1 and/or MTAP/CDKN2A loss is not well understood or well defined. Against this backdrop, we undertook an investigation of 21 cases of WDPMT, identified from our case files and diagnosed according to 2021 WHO criteria, to explore the relationship between histology and BAP1 and MTAP/CDKN2A expression with clinical features including asbestos exposure, focality of tumours and clinical outcome. There were 18 women and three men, with ages ranging from 23-77 years (median 62 years), in which six had a history of asbestos exposure, two had no exposure, and in 13 exposure history was unavailable. Of 20 peritoneal tumours and one pleural tumour, 13 were detected incidentally at the time of surgery for unrelated conditions and eight peritoneal tumours were multifocal at the time of diagnosis. BAP1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed in all 21 tumours, with nine tumours showing BAP1 expression loss. MTAP/CDKN2A testing was performed in 14 tumours, comprising MTAP IHC in 12 and CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in two, with three tumours showing MTAP/CDKN2A expression loss. Two tumours with MTAP/CDKN2A loss also showed BAP1 expression loss. Four patients progressed to invasive mesothelioma, including one male with a pleural tumour and asbestos exposure, and three females with multifocal peritoneal tumours, two with asbestos exposure and one without exposure. BAP1 expression loss was seen in all tumours from the four patients who progressed to invasive mesothelioma, whilst two of these tumours showed retained MTAP IHC and two were not tested. There was one patient with a tumour with MTAP loss and retained BAP1 who died from unrelated causes 5 months after diagnosis. Eight patients received WDPMT-specific treatment in addition to the initial excision. Survival for all patients ranged from 4-218 months, with one patient dying of mesothelioma at 49 months. Based on our results in this series of 21 patients with WDPMT diagnosed according to 2021 WHO criteria, we propose that WDPMT with BAP1 expression loss may best be regarded as papillary MIS and that a history of asbestos exposure and the presence of multifocal tumours in patients diagnosed with WDPMT should prompt ancillary testing with BAP1 IHC. Further we propose that BAP1 IHC should be essential in the diagnosis of WDPMT, with the diagnosis restricted to those tumours which show retained BAP1 expression. However more studies in larger cohorts of patients are needed to explore the relationship between BAP1 expression and MTAP loss in WDPMT, which will help to define this entity and separate it more clearly from MIS and invasive mesothelioma.

Diagnostic performance of immunohistochemistry markers for malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and subtypes. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) poses diagnostic challenges due to its resemblance to benign pleural pathologies and different histological subtypes. Several immunohistochemistry markers have been employed to aid in accurate diagnosis.

METHODS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of various immunohistochemistry markers in malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and its histological subtypes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the literature for articles on using different immunohistochemical markers in MPM and its histological subtypes. EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library were searched for studies published up to August 2023. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria to assess the quality of the included articles. Meta-analyses were performed to determine prevalence using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

103 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a diverse range of immunohistochemistry markers. EMA and desmin-loss exhibited high sensitivity (96% and 92%, respectively) in distinguishing malignant pleural mesothelioma from benign pleural pathologies. Specificity was notably high for both BAP1-loss and survivin expression at 100%. Subtype-specific analyses demonstrated that EMA and HEG1 were sensitive markers for epithelioid mesothelioma, while GLUT1 showed high sensitivity for sarcomatoid mesothelioma. In cases comparing epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma, CAM5.2 and calretinin displayed high sensitivity, while WT1 and BAP1-loss demonstrated exceptional specificity for malignant epithelioid mesothelioma. In the case of sarcomatoid mesothelioma and sarcomatoid lung carcinoma, GATA3 exhibited the most heightened sensitivity, while GATA3 and D2-40 displayed the best specificity for sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Immunohistochemistry markers are essential in accurately diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma and its histological subtypes. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comprehensive insight into the diagnostic performance of these markers, facilitating their potential clinical utility in the discrimination of malignant pleural mesothelioma from other pleural pathologies and the differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma subtypes.

Mesothelioma in the pleura, pericardium and peritoneum: Recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)

AIMS

Mesothelioma is a rare malignancy of the serosal membranes that is commonly related to exposure to asbestos. Despite extensive research and clinical trials, prognosis to date remains poor. Consistent, comprehensive and reproducible pathology reporting form the basis of all future interventions for an individual patient, but also ensures that meaningful data are collected to identify predictive and prognostic markers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This article details the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) process and the development of the international consensus mesothelioma reporting data set. It describes the 'core' and 'non-core' elements to be included in pathology reports for mesothelioma of all sites, inclusive of clinical, macroscopic, microscopic and ancillary testing considerations. An international expert panel consisting of pathologists and a medical oncologist produced a set of data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence, and in light of the changes in the 2021 WHO Classification of Tumours. The commentary focuses particularly upon new entities such as mesothelioma in situ and provides background on relevant and essential ancillary testing as well as implementation of the new requirement for tumour grading.

CONCLUSION

We recommend widespread and consistent implementation of this data set, which will facilitate accurate reporting and enhance the consistency of data collection, improve the comparison of epidemiological data, support retrospective research and ultimately help to improve clinical outcomes. To this end, all data sets are freely available worldwide on the ICCR website (www.iccr-cancer.org/data-sets).

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.

Pleural Mesothelioma: Current Practice and Approach

Pleural mesotheliomas represent one of the most common diagnostic challenges in thoracic pathology. The diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma weighs heavily on clinical and radiologic information. In addition, in the past, before the era of immunohistochemistry, the diagnosis was aided with the use of special histochemical stains-PAS, D-PAS, and mucicarmine, which now very much have been replaced by immunohistochemical stains. In the era of immunohistochemistry, a combination of carcinomatous epitopes and positive mesothelioma markers has become paramount in the diagnosis of mesothelioma, and more recently the use of molecular techniques has become another ancillary tool in supporting such a diagnosis. At the same time, the treatment and clinical outcome of these patients may in some measure be determined by the histopathological features of the tumor and one that also over the years has changed from a palliative type to surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or a combination of these types. The histopathological growth patterns of mesothelioma are also wide, and in some cases may mimic other tumors that may be primary or metastatic to the pleura. Therefore, the assessment of the diagnosis of mesothelioma is one that requires a global view of the different factors including clinical, radiologic, pathologic-including immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnosis.

Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase and Breast Cancer 1 Protein-Associated Protein 1 as Biomarkers for the Peritoneal Mesothelioma

OBJECTIVES

Combination of Breast Cancer 1 protein-associated protein 1 (BAP1) and methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) in the peritoneal mesothelioma (PeM) has yet to be explored. We aim to assess the diagnostic value of combined BAP1 and MTAP to distinguish biphasic mesothelioma (BM) from epithelioid mesothelioma (EM) with reactive stroma in peritoneum, as well as its prognostic value in PeM.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study from June 2014 to December 2021. This study included 18 cases of BM and 27 cases of EM with reactive stroma, excluded sarcomatoid, and EM without reactive stroma cases, and clinicopathological information was collected. The associations between MTAP and BAP1 levels and clinicopathological features or prognosis were analyzed. Clinical follow-up data were reviewed to correlate with pathological prognostic factors using Kaplan-Meier estimator and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

Loss/decrease of BAP1/MTAP was observed in 6 (33.3%) BM cases and 12 (44.4%) EM cases. In 5 (27.8%) cases, loss of or decreased BAP1/MTAP expression was observed in both EC and SC of BM. BAP1/MTAP loss/decrease was observed in 12 (44.4%) cases of only EC of EM but not in reactive stroma. Compared with histology alone, a combination of BAP1 and MTAP immunohistochemistry (IHC) in spindled PeM provides a more objective mean to distinguish BM from EM with reactive stroma. Loss/decrease of BAP1/MTAP was associated with peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score (P = 0.047) and completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score (P = 0.038). BM patients have worse overall survival (OS) than EM with reactive stroma (P = 0 .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination of BAP1/MTAP by IHC is helpful for differential diagnosis of peritoneal BM from EM with reactive stroma. Nevertheless, BAP1/MTAP may help to evaluate the biological behavior of PeM.

Usefulness of NF2 hemizygous loss detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnosing pleural mesothelioma in tissue and cytology material: A multi-institutional study

OBJECTIVES

BAP1, CDKN2A, and NF2 are the most frequently altered genes in pleural mesotheliomas (PM). Discriminating PM from benign mesothelial proliferation (BMP) is sometimes challenging; it is well established that BAP1 loss, determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC), and CDKN2A homozygous deletion (HD), determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), are useful. However, data regarding the diagnostic utility of NF2 FISH in PM is limited. Thus, we performed a multi-institutional study examining the utility of NF2 alterations determined by FISH for diagnosing PM in combination with BAP1 loss and CDKN2A HD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multi-institutional PM cases, including 106 surgical and 107 cell block samples as well as 37 tissue cases of benign mesothelial proliferation (BMP) and 31 cell block cases with reactive mesothelial cells (RMC), were collected and analyzed using IHC for BAP1 and FISH for CDKN2A and NF2.

RESULTS

In PM, NF2 FISH revealed hemizygous loss (HL) in 54.7% of tissue cases (TC) and 49.5% of cell block cases (CBC), with about 90% of HL being monosomy. CDKN2A HD or BAP1 loss were detected in 75.5%/65.4% TC or 63.6%/60% CBC, respectively. BMP or RMC showed no BAP1 loss, CDKN2A HD, or NF2 HL. For discriminating PM from BMP, a combination of BAP1 loss, CDKN2A HD, and NF2 HL yielded enhanced sensitivity of 98.1% TC/94.4% CBC. BAP1 loss, CDKN2A HD, or NF2 HL were observed in 69%, 70%, or 58% of epithelioid PM, but in 9%, 91%, or 27% of sarcomatoid PM, respectively. Histotype, histological gradings, and CDKN2A deletion status showed significant differences in overall survival, while BAP1 loss and NF2 HL did not.

CONCLUSION

NF2 HL, consisting predominantly of monosomy, can be detected by FISH in both TC and CBC of PM, and is effective for distinguishing PM from BMP, especially when combined with BAP1 loss and CDKN2A HD.

Clinical and molecular validation of BAP1, MTAP, P53, and Merlin immunohistochemistry in diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma

BAP1 and MTAP immunostains play an important role in diagnosis of mesothelioma, but additional markers are needed to increase sensitivity. We analyzed 84 pleural mesotheliomas (51 epithelioid, 27 biphasic, 6 sarcomatoid) by a hybrid-capture next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel including complete coverage of coding and splicing regions for BAP1, CDKN2A/MTAP, NF2, and TP53 and correlated molecular findings with diagnostic immunostains for BAP1, MTAP, Merlin, and p53, respectively. Fifty-seven reactive mesothelial proliferations served as benign comparators. Loss of BAP1, MTAP, and Merlin protein expression were, respectively, 54%, 46%, and 52% sensitive and 100% specific for mesothelioma. Two-marker immunopanels of BAP1 + MTAP, BAP1 + Merlin, and MTAP + Merlin were 79%, 85%, and 71% sensitive for mesothelioma, while a three-marker immunopanel of BAP1 + MTAP + Merlin was 90% sensitive. Diffuse (mutant-pattern) p53 immunostaining was seen in only 6 (7%) tumors but represented the only immunohistochemical abnormality in 2 cases. Null-pattern p53 was not specific for malignancy. An immunopanel of BAP1 + MTAP + Merlin + p53 was 93% sensitive for mesothelioma, and panel NGS detected a pathogenic alteration in BAP1, MTAP, NF2, and/or TP53 in 95%. Together, 83 (99%) of 84 tumors showed a diagnostic alteration by either immunohistochemistry or panel NGS. Adding Merlin to the standard BAP1 + MTAP immunopanel increases sensitivity for mesothelioma without sacrificing specificity. p53 immunohistochemistry and panel NGS with complete coverage of BAP1, CDKN2A/MTAP, TP53, and NF2 may be useful in diagnostically challenging cases.

Diagnostic capacity of BAP1 and MTAP in cytology from effusions and biopsy in mesothelioma

INTRODUCTION

Serous effusion is often the first sign of mesothelioma. Diagnosis based on cytologic material from the effusions remains controversial and complementary biopsy is usually required. However, obtaining representative tissue sample may be challenging, while obtaining cytologic material is a minimally invasive procedure, providing potential for an earlier diagnosis. Loss of BRCA1-associated protein (BAP1), combined with loss of methylthionadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) detected by immunohistochemistry, have shown to be reliable markers in the diagnosis of mesothelioma on histologic sections. Here we evaluate the value of these biomarkers in cytologic specimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The BAP1 and MTAP expression in specimens of 162 mesothelioma patients (156 pleural, 6 peritoneal)-71 cytologic, 91 histologic (44 epithelioid, 31 biphasic, 16 sarcomatoid)-and 20 patients with reactive mesothelial proliferations were investigated.

RESULTS

The loss of BAP1 and/or MTAP was highly sensitive and specific in differentiating mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial proliferations, with no significant difference between pleural effusions and biopsies, specificity of 100% in both and a sensitivity of 78.9% and 80.2%, respectively (P = 0.3). There was a 100% concordance of the expression of BAP1 and MTAP in cytologic and corresponding histopathologic samples. Loss of BAP1 and/or MTAP in histologic sections discriminated sarcomatoid, biphasic, and epithelioid mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial proliferations with a sensitivity of 81.2%, 83.9%, and 77.3% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Loss of expression of BAP1 and/or MTAP differentiated mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial proliferations with excellent specificity and high sensitivity in cytologic samples, comparable to histopathologic sections.

Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma with Bland Histologic Features: A Potential Pitfall in Diagnosis

Sarcomatoid mesotheliomas can be challenging to diagnose on small biopsy specimens, where limited material may preclude definitive assessment of invasion and lesional cells can have relatively bland cytology with no mesothelial marker expression. We report a case of a patient who presented with a pleural effusion and had subsequent pleural biopsy that showed a bland, uniform spindle cell proliferation in a mildly myxoid background. There was little if any collagen; no chest wall, soft tissue, or fat; and mesothelial markers were negative. The cells were positive for pancytokeratin and GATA3 by immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridization showed a "negative" result for homozygous loss of CDKN2A; however, there was partial (heterozygous) loss of one allele. A diagnosis of atypical spindle cell proliferation was made based on these findings. Several months later, the patient had a repeat pleural biopsy that showed spindled cells with more pleomorphism, areas of invasion into the chest wall, and the same partial loss of CDKN2A, consistent with a sarcomatoid mesothelioma. This case underscores the challenges present on small biopsy specimens, the fact that sarcomatoid mesotheliomas can be relatively bland appearing with focal pleomorphism, and that heterozygous loss of CDKN2A should be considered a positive result indicative of a neoplastic process.

Primary cardiac undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma is associated with TP53 mutation during lack of MDM2 amplification, and targeted sequencing analysis reveals potentially actionable targets

Cardiac undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) is a rare malignancy. Several studies have revealed frequent MDM2, CDK4, PDFGRA, and KIT amplifications and CDKN2A and CDKN2B deletions. Cases lacking the above copy number alterations may harbor alternative driver mutations; however, little is known about such occurrences. This study was conducted to gain further insights into the molecular features of cardiac UPS using targeted sequencing of 560 cancer-related genes, and fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry of MDM2, CDK4, CDKN2A, TP53, and RB1 in 9 cardiac UPS cases. TP53 mutation or CDKN2A deletion was found in cases lacking MDM2 amplification. Further, p53 overexpression was detected in the case with TP53 mutation, while p16 expression was completely lost in the case with CDKN2A homozygous deletion. p16 overexpression was found in cases with MDM2 and CDK4 amplification but without CDKN2A deletion. Immunohistochemistry of MDM2, CDK4, p53, and p16 is expected to be preliminarily used for gene status analysis. As cardiac UPS and intimal sarcomas are merging into a single spectrum, mutation data for 3 cardiac UPS and 9 intimal sarcomas from the literature, as well as data for 5 cardiac UPS in our study were evaluated, and known recurrently mutated cancer driver genes, including PDGFRB, TP53, ALK, PTCH1, RET, ERBB4, JAK3, GATA1, PIK3CG, and RARA, were identified. Several new potentially actionable mutations, including those in RARA, ALK, PTCH1, RET, ROS1, ABL1, and MET, were also found. These findings improve the molecular understanding of this rare malignancy and are expected to provide a basis for developing precision therapeutics for cardiac UPS and intimal sarcomas.

Analysis of early pleural fluid samples in patients with mesothelioma: A case series exploration of morphology, BAP1, and CDKN2A status with implications for the concept of mesothelioma in situ in cytology

BACKGROUND

The concept of mesothelioma in situ has been revisited and is a new World Health Organization diagnostic entity. The definition centers on ancillary techniques used in pleural mesothelioma (PM) assessment. At the authors' institution, most PM diagnoses are made on cytologic specimens. Effusion samples obtained before definitive PM diagnosis were interrogated using BRCA1-associated protein 1 gene (BAP1), cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A gene (CDKN2A) and cytologic evaluation to assess whether early or possible in situ disease could be characterized.

METHODS

All cases of PM diagnosed between January 2008 and December 2019 were identified at a tertiary referral center. Patients who had a pleural fluid sample collected 24 months before the diagnosis were selected, numbering 8 in total. The cytomorphology of each sample was reviewed; and, retrospectively, BAP1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were performed on initial and diagnostic samples.

RESULTS

The initial samples were deemed benign in 5 cases and atypical mesothelial proliferations in 3 cases. A spectrum of apparently normal to atypical cytomorphologic changes was identified. BAP1 loss was present in 6 of 8 initial cases, whereas CDKN2A homozygous deletion was identified in 1 of 7 initial cases. Either abnormality was identified in 7 of 8 initial samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Detectable abnormalities of BAP1 IHC and CDKN2A FISH were present in pleural fluid specimens before the development of cytomorphologic features diagnostic of PM. This is the largest series to date describing cytology samples early in the course of PM development, thereby highlighting a possible cytological equivalent for mesothelioma in situ.

Diagnostic mesothelioma biomarkers in effusion cytology

Malignant mesothelioma is a rare malignancy with a poor prognosis whose development is related to asbestos fiber exposure. An increasing role of genetic predisposition has been recognized recently. Pleural biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis, in which the identification of pleural invasion by atypical mesothelial cell is a major criterion. Pleural effusion is usually the first sign of disease; therefore, a cytological specimen is often the initial or the only specimen available for diagnosis. Given that reactive mesothelial cells may show marked atypia, the diagnosis of mesothelioma on cytomorphology alone is challenging. Accordingly, cell block preparation is encouraged, as it permits immunohistochemical staining. Traditional markers of mesothelioma such as glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1) and insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3) are informative, but difficult to interpret when reactive proliferations aberrantly stain positive. BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) nuclear staining loss is highly specific for mesothelioma, but sensitivity is low in sarcomatoid tumors. Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A)/p16 homozygous deletion, assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization, is more specific for mesothelioma with better sensitivity, even in the sarcomatoid variant. The surrogate marker methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) has been found to demonstrate excellent diagnostic correlation with p16. The purpose of this review is to provide an essential appraisal of the literature regarding the diagnostic value of many of these emerging biomarkers for malignant mesothelioma in effusion cytology.

Diagnostic utility of BAP1 for malignant pleural mesothelioma in pleural fluid specimens with atypical morphology

OBJECTIVE

To assess the utility of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in fluid samples with atypical cytology.

METHODS

Pleural fluid samples with an atypical mesothelial proliferation (diagnostic categories: 'atypical' and 'suspicious') received between January 2015 and March 2018 at a tertiary referral centre were identified. Results of routine IHC testing were recorded for each case. BAP1 by IHC was performed and a final diagnosis sought from subsequent pathology specimens, medical records, or consensus clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of 50 cases identified, 41 were reported as atypical and 9 as suspicious. Seven (14%) demonstrated loss of BAP1 staining, 40 retained BAP1 staining, 1 had heterogeneous staining, and 2 had insufficient cells for analysis. All seven cases with BAP1 loss were diagnosed with MPM on follow-up. Of those with retained BAP1, 52.5% (21) were subsequently diagnosed with MPM, while 40% (16) had non-MPM diagnoses after a median follow-up of 24 months. Three cases were not further investigated based on patient and clinician decision. The case with heterogeneous staining was diagnosed as mesothelioma by clinical consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

BAP1 IHC loss is highly specific for malignancy and has value as a rule-in test. Even in a tertiary centre with clinical interest in the cytological diagnosis of MPM this investigation was able to increase diagnostic accuracy beyond routine IHC studies. Cytological criteria remain valuable, as retained BAP1 in an atypical or suspicious mesothelial proliferation cannot exclude malignancy.

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.

Can BAP1 expression loss in mesothelial cells be an indicator of malignancy?

Background

Malignant mesothelioma is a highly aggressive tumor that can be confused with a benign mesothelial lesion, especially cytomorphologic lesions. BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) acts as a tumor suppressor. In this study, we aim to investigate the value of BAP1 staining of malignant mesothelioma cases with expression loss and diagnosis in cell block and biopsy tissue.

Methods

Between January 2009 and March 2017, 64 mesotheliomas, 117 reactive mesothelial hyperplasias, and 20 fibrinous pleuritis/pericarditis were diagnosed with morphologic and immunohistochemical findings in our pathology clinic and were included in the study. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues were immunohistochemically examined for BAP1. Inflammatory and stromal cells were used as positive internal controls. BAP1 was assessed for nuclear staining in mesothelial cells.

Results

Examinations of the relationship between patient diagnosis and BAP1 biopsy status showed that the BAP1 loss rate (76.6%) was significantly higher in malignant mesothelioma cases than in other benign diseases (0%) (p<.001). Sensitivity and specificity were 76.56% and 100%, respectively, for biopsy tissue from malignant mesothelioma. Sensitivity and specificity were both 100% for BAP1 test on cell block tissue. Furthermore, the consistency between BAP1 cell block and biopsy results was excellent (ĸ=0.90) and the correlation was significant (p<.001).

Conclusions

This study shows that BAP1 expression loss in both cytology and biopsy tissue in biopsy-confirmed malignant mesothelioma cases is an essential parameter for malignant mesothelioma diagnosis.

Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma: A CDKN2A molecular analysis of 53 cases with immunohistochemical correlation with BAP1

Fifty-three cases of sarcomatoid pleural mesothelioma were evaluated for CDKN2A (p16) homozygous deletion and correlated with BRCA-associated protein-1 (BAP1) expression by immunohistochemistry. The patients are 45 men and 8 women between the ages of 37 and 79 years (average age: 58 years), who presented with symptoms of chest pain, cough, and weight loss. Diagnostic imaging showed the presence of diffuse pleural thickening with encasement of the lung parenchyma in all the cases. All patients were surgically treated with extrapleural pneumonectomy. Loss of BAP1 reactivity was seen in 49 tumors and p16 homozygous deletion was seen in 41 tumors, while in 16 patients either BAP1 or p16 were noncontributory to the diagnosis of mesothelioma. However, we were able to detect a better survival rate in those patients in whom BAP1 was lost and p16 showed homozygous deletion. Our findings showed that even though the use of BAP1 and p16 are important tools in the diagnosis of mesothelioma, a proportion of cases still remains negative with approximately 30 % of the cases in which the concordance of BAP1 loss and p16 homozygous deletion will not be present. We consider that the final diagnosis of mesothelioma is best accomplished by a global interpretation of clinical, radiographic, and pathological features including immunohistochemistry and molecular studies.

Comprehensive Molecular and Pathologic Evaluation of Transitional Mesothelioma Assisted by Deep Learning Approach: A Multi-Institutional Study of the International Mesothelioma Panel from the MESOPATH Reference Center

INTRODUCTION

Histologic subtypes of malignant pleural mesothelioma are a major prognostic indicator and decision denominator for all therapeutic strategies. In an ambiguous case, a rare transitional mesothelioma (TM) pattern may be diagnosed by pathologists either as epithelioid mesothelioma (EM), biphasic mesothelioma (BM), or sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM). This study aimed to better characterize the TM subtype from a histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular standpoint. Deep learning of pathologic slides was applied to this cohort.

METHODS

A random selection of 49 representative digitalized sections from surgical biopsies of TM was reviewed by 16 panelists. We evaluated BAP1 expression and CDKN2A (p16) homozygous deletion. We conducted a comprehensive, integrated, transcriptomic analysis. An unsupervised deep learning algorithm was trained to classify tumors.

RESULTS

The 16 panelists recorded 784 diagnoses on the 49 cases. Even though a Kappa value of 0.42 is moderate, the presence of a TM component was diagnosed in 51%. In 49% of the histological evaluation, the reviewers classified the lesion as EM in 53%, SM in 33%, or BM in 14%. Median survival was 6.7 months. Loss of BAP1 observed in 44% was less frequent in TM than in EM and BM. p16 homozygous deletion was higher in TM (73%), followed by BM (63%) and SM (46%). RNA sequencing unsupervised clustering analysis revealed that TM grouped together and were closer to SM than to EM. Deep learning analysis achieved 94% accuracy for TM identification.

CONCLUSION

These results revealed that the TM pattern should be classified as non-EM or at minimum as a subgroup of the SM type.

Update on the pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that may be difficult to diagnose. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group has been writing guidelines for pathological diagnosis that are periodically updated. The guidelines are being updated based on published literature in the last 3 years, and experience of more than 20 leading international pathologists in the field who will be co-authors. Updates were discussed by attendees of the Pulmonary Pathology Society Biennial Meeting (Dubrovnik, Croatia, June 2019). Areas with significant advancements/changes include utilization of immunohistochemistry (establishing mesothelial lineage and benign versus malignant), prognosis and nuclear grading, biphasic malignant mesothelioma, transitional pattern, malignant mesothelioma in situ, and therapeutic/molecular targets.

HEG1, BAP1, and MTAP are useful in cytologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma with effusion

BACKGROUND

The specificity and sensitivity of HEG1 for malignant mesothelioma (MM) is high. The use of BAP1/MTAP immunohistochemistry (IHC) is recommended to separate benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations. We determined how ancillary techniques can be used for the cytological diagnosis of MM with effusion.

METHODS

Cell blocks from effusions from cases with MM, reactive mesothelial cells (RMCs), and carcinomas were analyzed by IHC with HEG1, BAP1, and MTAP and with homozygous deletion (HD) of CDKN2A by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Staining scores were calculated for IHC by adding the number of categories for the staining intensity and the staining extension.

RESULTS

HEG1 was positive in all (41/41) MMs, but negative in carcinomas, except for ovarian carcinomas. Overall 76.9% (20/26) of RMCs and 28.6% (6/21) of ovarian carcinomas expressed HEG1. BAP1 loss was found in 71.1% of MMs, but none was found in RMCs. MTAP loss was found in 76.2% of MMs, but none was found in RMCs. 73.9% of MMs harbored HD of CDKN2A. There was concordance between loss of MTAP and HD of CDKN2A in 95% of MMs.

CONCLUSION

HEG1 is a good marker for mesothelial differentiation in effusion cytology. HD of CDKN2A is frequently observed in cell blocks from effusions of MMs, and MTAP IHC may act as a surrogate for HD of CDKN2A. Cell block analysis is recommended for effusions of unknown origins with the following methods: IHC with HEG1 and claudin 4 to validate the mesothelial origin, followed by BAP1 and MTAP IHC to confirm malignancy.

Application of immunohistochemistry in diagnosis and management of malignant mesothelioma

Immunohistochemistry plays an indispensable role in accurate diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, particularly in morphologically challenging cases and in biopsy and cytology specimens, where tumor architecture is difficult or impossible to evaluate. Application of a targeted panel of mesothelial- and epithelial-specific markers permits correct identification of tumor lineage in the vast majority of cases. An immunopanel including two mesothelial markers (calretinin, CK5/6, WT-1, or D2-40) and two epithelial markers (MOC-31 and claudin-4) offers good sensitivity and specificity, with adjustments as appropriate for the differential diagnosis. Once mesothelial lineage is established, malignancy-specific studies can help verify a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. BAP1 loss, CDKN2A homozygous deletion, and MTAP loss are highly specific markers of malignancy in a mesothelial lesion, and they attain acceptable diagnostic sensitivity when applied as a diagnostic panel. Novel markers of malignancy, such as 5-hmC loss and increased EZH2 expression, are promising, but have not yet achieved widespread clinical adoption. Some diagnostic markers also have prognostic significance, and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry may predict tumor response to immunotherapy. Application and interpretation of these immnuomarkers should always be guided by clinical history, radiographic findings, and above all histomorphology.

MTAP immunohistochemistry is an accurate and reproducible surrogate for CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Ancillary studies facilitate accurate diagnosis of morphologically challenging mesothelial proliferations. The current diagnostic algorithm proceeds from BAP1 immunohistochemistry to CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization. While MTAP immunohistochemistry has recently shown promise as a surrogate for CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization, it has been examined in only a few single-institution studies. Furthermore, there are no published reports on interobserver agreement or interlaboratory reproducibility for MTAP immunohistochemistry. We performed MTAP immunohistochemistry on 20 benign mesothelial lesions and 99 malignant mesotheliomas from five mesothelioma centers in four countries, and each MTAP stain was independently interpreted by four pathologists. CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization data were available for a subset of cases, and a subset of cases was subjected in MTAP immunohistochemistry in multiple laboratories to assess interlaboratory reproducibility. Interobserver agreement in MTAP immunostain interpretation was excellent for all mesothelial lesions (kappa: 0.85) and for malignant mesothelioma cases only (kappa: 0.82). Interlaboratory reproducibility was also excellent (kappa values for paired protocols: 0.77-0.89). MTAP loss by immunohistochemistry was 78% sensitive and 96% specific for CDKN2A homozygous deletion. MTAP immunohistochemistry is a reliable surrogate for CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Interobserver agreement is excellent for interpretation of MTAP staining, and protocols performed in different laboratories yield concordant MTAP staining results. Rare cases with immunohistochemical MTAP loss may retain normal CDKN2A copy number, and the MTAP staining results should be correlated with clinicopathologic findings and other ancillary studies.

Clinical feature of diagnostic challenging cases for pleural biopsy in patient with malignant pleural mesothelioma

OBJECTIVE

Pleural biopsy through video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS pleural biopsy) is the most reliable diagnostic procedure for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). However, definitive diagnosis of MPM is occasionally difficult to establish. This study aims to investigate clinicopathological features of MPM patients who failed diagnosis by the first VATS pleural biopsy.

METHODS

Four hundred consecutive patients with suspected MPM who received VATS pleural biopsy between March 2004 and July 2017 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients, whose histological diagnoses were not definitive in the first VATS pleural biopsy, were followed up as atypical mesothelial proliferation (AMP) or non-specific pleuritis (NSP). Re-examination was performed in cases strongly suspected of having MPM.

RESULTS

Of the 400 patients, 267 (66.8%) were pathologically diagnosed with MPM, 25 with metastatic carcinoma and 6 with benign pleural disease by the first VATS pleural biopsy. Of the remaining 102 patients diagnosed with AMP or NSP, 10 patients (9.8%) were subsequently diagnosed with MPM. Analysis of the clinical course revealed that only insufficient tissue for diagnosis was obtained via VATS pleural biopsy in all cases and that it was caused by very early stage without visible tumour in 4 patients, intrathoracic inflammation in 4 and desmoplastic MPM in 2.

CONCLUSIONS

In our review, 9.8% of patients diagnosed with AMP or NSP in first VATS pleural biopsy were subsequently diagnosed with MPM due to insufficient tissue for diagnosis. Definitive diagnosis via VATS pleural biopsy is sometimes challenging in following situation; very early stage, intrathoracic inflammation and desmoplastic MPM.

Localized biphasic malignant peritoneal mesothelioma presenting as a rectal tumor

An 84-year-old male presented with bloody stool. On digital rectal examination, a large and firm tumor was palpated in the anterior wall of the rectum at 2 cm from the anal verge. The colonoscopy revealed an ulcerated mass with smooth margins in the anterior wall of the rectum. Enhanced computed tomography showed a huge tumor in the pelvis, invading rectum, urinary bladder and the prostate, with signs of splenic and peritoneal metastases. Findings from an endoscopic biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration suggested spindle cell carcinoma. We tentatively diagnosed as spindle cell carcinoma of the rectum and administered panitumumab as palliative chemotherapy. He eventually died at 4 months after the first visit to our institution. The autopsy findings resulted in the confirmed diagnosis as biphasic malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. There are only four previous reports on malignant peritoneal mesothelioma presenting as a colorectal tumor. Although rare, malignant peritoneal mesothelioma should be considered in differential diagnosis of colorectal tumors.

BAP1 in solid tumors

One of the most attractive cancer-related genes under investigation is BAP1. Reasons of this growing interest are related to the wide spectrum of pathways directly or indirectly modulated by this gene and shared by several solid tumors. Programmed cell-death, cell metabolisms, immune cells development, ferroptosis and defects in DNA damage response are only some of the multitude of processes depending on BAP1. Loss of this gene seems to occur in different times of tumor history. Moreover, times of BAP1 loss strongly diverge among primary tumors suggesting the presence of several and different triggering factors. Regardless of when it happens, BAP1 loss usually results in prognosis worsening and in the acquisition of more aggressive clinical features by cancer cells.

Primary malignant mesothelioma of the diaphragm with liver invasion: A case report and review of literature

RATIONALE

Malignant mesothelioma is a malignant tumor with poor prognosis, which usually originates in the pleura, peritoneum, and pericardial cavity. Mesotheliomas that originate from the diaphragm are very rare. Here, we report a case of primary malignant mesothelioma of the diaphragm with liver invasion.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 66-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital because of a "liver space-occupying lesion," without any special clinical symptoms. Imaging examinations suggested a cystic-solid mixed lesion in the right lobe of the liver.

DIAGNOSIS

The tumor was diagnosed as epithelioid mesothelioma of the diaphragm with liver invasion.

INTERVENTION

The patient underwent abdominal surgery in our hospital to remove the diaphragmatic mass, liver mass, and part of the diaphragm.

OUTCOMES

The postoperative course was uneventful.

LESSONS

Primary diaphragmatic malignant mesothelioma is very rare and may involve liver or lung tissue and be mistaken for liver or lung tumor. Accurate diagnosis depends on careful pathological examination. Immunohistochemical staining is very useful to distinguish this tumor from other liver or diaphragmatic tumors.

[Malignant mesothelioma and constitutional BAP1 gene mutations]

Malignant mesothelioma is a rare tumour, usually the result of asbestos exposure. Several cases of familial aggregation have been reported and recently shown to be associated with constitutional mutations of the BAP1 gene. BAP1 is a deubiquitinating enzyme implicated in several different cellular mechanisms such as the repair or differentiation of DNA. About a half of malignant mesotheliomas present a somatic, bi-allelic inactivation of BAP1, demonstrated by nuclear extinction on histochemistry. Constitutional alterations of BAP1 are extremely rare. Present in the heterozygous state they are transmitted as an autosomal dominant. They are associated with a risk of developing other tumours such as uveal and cutaneous melanomas, benign melanocytic tumours (melanocytic BAP1-mutated atypical intradermal tumour or MBAITS) and clear cell renal carcinomas. The causal link between mesothelioma and germinal mutations of BAP1 has still not been clearly identified. At present there is, in France, no consensus on recommendations for the management of patients with these mutations. This article is a synthesis of the literature on the functions of the BAP1 gene, the tumour risks related to its alteration and the follow up of patients bearing a constitutional mutation.

New Insights on Diagnostic Reproducibility of Biphasic Mesotheliomas: A Multi-Institutional Evaluation by the International Mesothelioma Panel From the MESOPATH Reference Center

INTRODUCTION

The 2015 WHO classification of tumors categorized malignant mesothelioma into epithelioid, biphasic (BMM), and sarcomatoid (SMM) for prognostic relevance and treatment decisions. The survival of BMM is suspected to correlate with the amount of the sarcomatoid component. The criteria for a sarcomatoid component and the interobserver variability between pathologists for identifying this component are not well described. In ambiguous cases, a "transitional" (TMM) subtype has been proposed but was not accepted as a specific subtype in the 2015 WHO classification. The aims of this study were to evaluate the interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of BMM, to determine the nature and the significance of TMM subtype, and to relate the percentage of sarcomatoid component with survival. The value of staining for BRCA-1-associated protein (BAP1) and CDKN2A(p16) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were also assessed with respect to each of the tumoral components.

METHODS

The study was conducted by the International Mesothelioma Panel supported by the French National Cancer Institute, the network of rare cancer (EURACAN) and in collaboration with the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The patient cases include a random group of 42 surgical biopsy samples diagnosed as BMM with evaluation of SMM component by the French Panel of MESOPATH experts was selected from the total series of 971 BMM cases collected from 1998 to 2016. Fourteen international pathologists with expertise in mesothelioma reviewed digitally scanned slides (hematoxylin and eosin - stained and pan-cytokeratin) without knowledge of prior diagnosis or outcome. Cases with at least 7 of 14 pathologists recognizing TMM features were selected as a TMM group. Demographic, clinical, histopathologic, treatment, and follow-up data were retrieved from the MESOBANK database. BAP1 (clone C-4) loss and CDKN2A(p16) homozygous deletion (HD) were assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and FISH, respectively. Kappa statistics were applied for interobserver agreement and multivariate analysis with Cox regression adjusted for age and gender was performed for survival analysis.

RESULTS

The 14 panelists recorded a total of 544 diagnoses. The interobserver correlation was moderate (weighted Kappa = 0.45). Of the cases originally classified as BMM by MESOPATH, the reviewers agreed in 71% of cases (385 of 544 opinions), with cases classified as pure epithelioid in 17% (93 of 544), and pure sarcomatoid in 12% (66 of 544 opinions). Diagnosis of BMM was made on morphology or IHC alone in 23% of the cases and with additional assessment of IHC in 77% (402 of 544). The median overall survival (OS) of the 42 BMM cases was 8 months. The OS for BMM was significantly different from SMM and epithelioid malignant mesothelioma (p < 0.0001). In BMM, a sarcomatoid component of less than 80% correlated with a better survival (p = 0.02). There was a significant difference in survival between BMM with TMM showing a median survival at 6 months compared to 12 months for those without TMM (p < 0.0001). BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 42) of the total cases and in both components in 26%. We also compared the TMM group to that of more aggressive patterns of epithelioid subtypes of mesothelioma (solid and pleomorphic of our large MESOPATH cohort). The curve of transitional type was persistently close to the OS curve of the sarcomatoid component. The group of sarcomatoid, transitional, and pleomorphic mesothelioma were very close to each other. We then considered the contribution of BAP1 immunostaining and loss of CDKN2A(p16) by FISH. BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 41) of the total cases and in both component in 27% of the cases (11 of 41). There was no significant difference in BAP1 loss between the TMM and non-TMM groups. HD CDKN2A(p16) was detected in 74% of the total cases with no significant difference between the TMM and non-TMM groups. In multivariate analysis, TMM morphology was an indicator of poor prognosis with a hazard ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.6 - 8.0; and p = 0.003 even when compared to the presence of HD CDKN2A(p16) on sarcomatoid component (hazard ratio = 4.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 - 16.3, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The interobserver concordance among the international mesothelioma and French mesothelioma panel suggests clinical utility for an updated definition of biphasic mesothelioma that allows better stratification of patients into risk groups for treatment decisions, systemic anticancer therapy, or selection for surgery or palliation. We also have shown the usefulness of FISH detection of CDKN2A(p16) HD compared to BAP1 loss on the spindle cell component for the separation in ambiguous cases between benign florid stromal reaction from true sarcomatoid component of biphasic mesothelioma. Taken together our results further validate the concept of transitional pattern as a poor prognostic indicator.

Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolases: involvement in cancer progression and clinical implications

Protein ubiquitination and deubiquitination participate in a number of biological processes, including cell growth, differentiation, transcriptional regulation, and oncogenesis. Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolases (UCHs), a subfamily of deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs), includes four members: UCH-L1/PGP9.5 (protein gene product 9.5), UCH-L3, UCHL5/UCH37, and BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1). Recently, more attention has been paid to the relationship between the UCH family and malignancies, which play different roles in the progression of different tumors. It remains controversial whether UCHL1 is a tumor promoter or suppressor. UCHL3 and UCH37 are considered to be tumor promoters, while BAP1 is considered to be a tumor suppressor. Studies have showed that UCH enzymes influence several signaling pathways that play crucial roles in oncogenesis, tumor invasion, and migration. In addition, UCH families are associated with tumor cell sensitivity to therapeutic modalities. Here, we reviewed the roles of UCH enzymes in the development of tumors, highlighting the potential consideration of UCH enzymes as new interesting targets for the development of anticancer drugs.

Update on Immunohistochemistry for the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer

Immunohistochemistry is a widely available technique that is less challenging and can provide clinically meaningful results quickly and cost-efficiently in comparison with other techniques. In addition, immunohistochemistry allows for the evaluation of cellular localization of proteins in the context of tumor structure. In an era of precision medicine, pathologists are required to classify lung cancer into specific subtypes and assess biomarkers relevant to molecular-targeted therapies. This review summarizes the hot topics of immunohistochemistry in lung cancer, including (i) adenocarcinoma vs squamous cell carcinoma; (ii) neuroendocrine markers; (iii) ALK, ROS1, and EGFR; (iv) PD-L1 (CD274); (v) lung carcinoma vs malignant mesothelioma; and (vi) NUT carcinoma. Major pitfalls in evaluating immunohistochemical results are also described.