Claudin-4 shows superior specificity for mesothelioma vs non-small-cell lung carcinoma compared with MOC-31 and Ber-EP4

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).

New developments in mesothelial pathology

This review article examines some new and some problem areas in mesothelial pathology, four of which are discussed, as follows. (1) The concept of mesothelioma in situ: this lesion is defined as a single layer of bland mesothelial cells without evidence of invasion, but that have lost BAP1 and/or MTAP by immunohistochemistry. Benign reactions can exactly mimic mesothelioma in situ, but a hint to the correct diagnosis is a story of recurrent pleural effusions/ascites of unknown aetiology without radiological or direct visual evidence of tumour. (2) The nature of well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour (WDPMT): WDPMT has a long history of arguments regarding its behaviour, and this uncertainty can now be seen to arise, in part, from the observation that some forms of mesothelioma in situ microscopically look exactly like WDPMT. Hence, it is recommended to always run at least a BAP1 stain on any lesion that looks like WDPMT. Both flat and WDPMT-like mesothelioma in situ are strongly associated with eventual development of invasive mesothelioma, but this process is relatively slow. (3) New immunostains for separating mesothelioma from other tumours: here, it is proposed that in most cases, and particularly when the differential is epithelioid mesothelioma versus non-small cell lung cancer, one can make this separation with extremely high sensitivity and specificity using just two stains: HEG1 and claudin-4. (4) Markers for separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations: this topic is briefly reviewed, with an indication of which markers are generally accepted and the best utilisation and possible limitations of each marker.

Malignant rhabdoid tumor of the omentum in an adult male: a case report and literature review

Malignant rhabdoid tumors (MRTs) are rare tumors with high mortality rates and poor prognoses. MRTs occur mainly in the central nervous system, kidneys, and soft tissues, but rarely in the omentum. MRTs occur more commonly in infants and children and less frequently in adults. Here, we report the first observed case of MRT in an adult omentum. A 35-year-old man with abdominal distension and pain was admitted to the emergency department. Previously, several hospitals considered patients with cirrhosis who had not received active treatment. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging revealed diffuse omental thickening and massive ascites. The surgery was performed at our hospital, and the pathological diagnosis was MRT with a SMARCB1(INI-1) deletion. Postoperatively, his symptoms improved, and he underwent five cycles of chemotherapy. However, 6 months after surgery, the tumor developed liver metastases, and the patient subsequently died. Primary MRT of the greater omentum is rare, and its pathological diagnosis usually requires extensive clinicopathological evaluation of various differential diagnoses and an appropriate work-up to exclude other malignancies associated with SMARCB1 deletion. At the same time, the lack of specific signs of omental MRT and its rapid progression should alert clinicians.

Hypothesis: HEG1 and claudin-4 staining will allow a diagnosis of epithelioid and biphasic mesothelioma versus non-small-cell lung carcinoma with only two stains in most cases

Separation of mesothelioma from metastatic carcinoma requires immunohistochemical support, with small batteries of stains recommended as a starting-point, but these numbers commonly expand to 10, 12 or more stains, a process that is not only expensive but frequently generates anomalous or confounding results, leading to even more stains. Here we review data on HEG1 clone SKM9-2, a new (now commercially available) mesothelioma marker and claudin-4, a broad-spectrum carcinoma marker, to ask whether these two stains are sufficient, by themselves, to separate mesotheliomas from non-small-cell lung (NSCLC) as well as other carcinomas. Data for HEG1, derived from four laboratories, showed membrane staining in 393 of 434 (91%) epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas and one of 360 (0.3%) NSCLC (sensitivity 91%, specificity 99.7%). Reports from seven laboratories evaluating claudin-4 in NSCLC showed positivity in 469 of 502 (93%) carcinomas and weak positivity in five of 463 (1.0%) epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas (sensitivity 93%, specificity 98.9%). Comparable results were found with carcinomas from other sites, except for serous and thyroid carcinomas, some of which react with HEG1 but are also positive for claudin-4. For sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, HEG1 sensitivity is modest and staining sometimes difficult to interpret. We hypothesise that the combination of HEG1 and claudin-4 immunostaining will potentially allow the separation of epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas from NSCLC carcinomas with high accuracy using only two immunostains in most cases. This combination will probably also work for carcinomas from most other sites, but more reports on HEG1 SKM9-2 staining of carcinomas other than NSCLC are needed. This approach would greatly simplify the diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Immunohistochemistry for Claudin-4 and BAP1 in the Differential Diagnosis between Sarcomatoid Carcinoma and Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma

(1) Background. In the differential diagnosis between sarcomatoid carcinoma (SC) and sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM), we aimed to investigate the role of Claudin-4 and BAP1, a panel recently used to distinguish conventional carcinoma from epithelioid mesothelioma. (2) Methods. We collected 41 surgical pleural biopsies of SM, 46 surgical resections of SC from different sites and 49 pleural biopsies of normal/hyperplastic mesothelium. All the cases were tested for Claudin-4 and BAP1 using immunohistochemistry. The statistical calculations of the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were performed. (3) Results: Claudin-4 was negative in 41/41 SMs, while it was positive in 18/36 (50.1%) SCs (eight diffusely, 10 focally) within their sarcomatous component. BAP1 was lost in 23/41 SMs, while it was regularly expressed in 46/46 SCs. All the cases of the normal/hyperplastic mesothelium were negative for Claudin-4 and retained the regular expression of BAP1. The Claudin-4 expression was useful for detecting SC (sensitivity, 39.1%; specificity, 100%) and the BAP1 loss was useful for diagnosing SM (sensitivity, 56.1%; specificity, 100%). (4) Conclusions. The staining for Claudin-4 and BAP1 exhibited a low/moderate sensitivity in diagnosing SC and SM (39.1% and 56.1%, respectively), but a very high specificity (100%). Claudin-4 was expressed only in SC and BAP1 loss was noted only in SM.

The utility of claudin‐4 versus MOC‐31 and Ber‐EP4 in the diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma in cytology specimens

BACKGROUND

Claudin-4 is a sensitive and specific marker for carcinoma in effusion cytology. The authors examined the diagnostic use of claudin-4 versus MOC-31 and Ber-EP4 by comparing their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) in differentiating carcinoma from mesothelioma and benign/mesothelial hyperplasia in effusion specimens.

METHODS

This retrospective study comprised a cohort of 229 cytology specimens, including 211 effusion fluid and 18 fine-needle aspiration specimens. Cytologic categories included 134 carcinoma, 28 mesothelioma, 46 indefinite (suspicious and atypical), and 21 benign. Cell block sections were stained for claudin-4 and compared with those previously stained for MOC-31 and Ber-EP4. Indefinite cases were further reclassified based on clinical and pathologic findings into benign (26 cases), mesothelioma (11 cases), and carcinoma (nine cases).

RESULTS

None of the mesotheliomas (0/39) or benign effusions (0/47) were positive for claudin-4, whereas 134 of the 143 carcinoma specimens were positive. Compared to MOC-31 and Ber-EP4, claudin-4 had the highest specificity and PPV (100% for each), followed by Ber-EP4. Claudin-4 showed high sensitivity (93.7%), albeit lower than MOC-31. MOC-31 had the lowest specificity and PPV but the highest sensitivity and NPV. Ber-EP4 had the lowest sensitivity (91.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Claudin-4 can be used as a single marker for carcinoma with high sensitivity and superior specificity compared with MOC-31 and Ber-EP4. Mesothelial lineage can be ruled out when claudin-4 is positive. In equivocal cytology samples with few scattered cells of interest, a panel of claudin-4 and Ber-EP4 results in the highest combined sensitivity and specificity.

Update of pathological diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma using genomic-based morphological techniques, for both histological and cytological investigations

As more than 80% of pleural mesothelioma (PM) cases start with pleural effusions, diagnosis with effusion smear cytology or pleural biopsy is important. For diagnosing PM, a three-step approach is used: (1) detecting atypical cells; (2) verifying their mesothelial origin using immunohistochemistry (IHC); and (3) discriminating PM from benign mesothelial proliferations (BMP). The third step is critical for diagnosing early lesions. In small biopsy or cytologic specimens in which tumor cell fat invasion cannot be assessed, genomic-based assays, including IHC-detected BAP1 loss and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-detected homozygous deletion (HD) of CDKN2A/p16, are effective for differentiation. Both BAP1 IHC and CDKN2A FISH can equally be applied to histologic and cytologic specimens, with 100% specificity in discriminating PM from BMP. We found that methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) loss as detected by IHC could serve as a feasible alternative in tissue and cytologic preparations for CDKN2A FISH. However, a combination including FISH was still most effective: the addition of NF2 FISH to CDKN2A FISH and BAP1 IHC yielded a greater sensitivity of close to 100% in diagnosing PM tissues. Although IHC is more feasible than FISH, owing to remaining challenges in data interpretation, caution and familiarity are warranted when diagnosing PM.

Loss of Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase by Immunohistochemistry Is Common in Pulmonary Sarcomatoid Carcinoma and Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma

OBJECTIVES

Differentiating malignant pleural mesothelioma from benign reactive mesothelial processes can be quite challenging. Ancillary tests such as BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) immunohistochemistry and p16 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are helpful tools to aid in this distinction. Immunohistochemistry for methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) has recently been proposed as an effective surrogate marker for p16 FISH and is an attractive alternative test due to shorter turnaround time. There are little data regarding the specificity of MTAP loss for mesothelioma or whether it may be useful to distinguish mesothelioma from the most common entity in the differential diagnosis, sarcomatoid carcinoma.

METHODS

We studied well-characterized cases of sarcomatoid carcinoma (n = 34) and sarcomatoid mesothelioma (n = 62), which were stained for MTAP (clone 2G4) and BAP1 (clone C-4).

RESULTS

Loss of MTAP expression was observed in 17 (50%) of 34 pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinomas; BAP1 expression was retained in all of the cases in which it was performed (n = 31). MTAP expression was lost in 38 (61%) of 62 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas; BAP1 was lost in 6 (10%) of 62. In the six cases with BAP1 loss, five also had loss of MTAP, while MTAP expression was retained in one.

CONCLUSIONS

Loss of MTAP expression by immunohistochemistry is common in pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma, as it is present in half of cases. This rate is similar to what is observed in sarcomatoid mesothelioma (61%). Therefore, this stain is not useful to distinguish between these two malignancies. MTAP loss is more common than BAP1 loss in the setting of sarcomatoid mesothelioma (61% vs 10%, respectively).

Utility of SOX6 and DAB2 for the Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma

The separation of malignant mesothelioma from non-small cell lung carcinomas can be a difficult problem. Sex-determining region Y box 6 (SOX6) and disabled homolog 2 (DAB2) have recently been proposed as sensitive/specific markers of mesothelial lineage, but have not yet been independently tested for utility in mesothelioma diagnosis. Using tissue microarrays containing mesotheliomas (epithelioid: n=40, sarcomatoid: n=23) and non-small cell lung carcinomas (adenocarcinoma: n=52, squamous cell carcinoma: n=57, large cell carcinoma: n=12) we evaluated the performance of SOX6 and DAB2 by themselves, in conjunction with other established mesothelioma markers (calretinin, WT1, D2-40, CK5/6, HEG1) and combined with 3 broad-spectrum established carcinoma markers: claudin-4, MOC31, and BerEP4. For epithelioid mesothelioma, SOX6 and DAB2 had sensitivities of 85% and 98%, respectively. For sarcomatoid mesothelioma, SOX6 had a sensitivity of 13% and DAB2 could not be assessed due to background stromal staining. For SOX6 alone, specificity for mesothelioma versus adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large cell carcinoma was 94%, 79%, and 92%, respectively, while for DAB2 specificity was 77%, 86%, and 67%. Combinations of SOX6 and established mesothelioma markers produced sensitivities of 95% or greater. A combination of SOX6 positive/claudin-4 negative staining was 95% to 100% specific for mesothelioma versus carcinoma with a sensitivity of 85%. SOX6 is a promising marker for the diagnosis of mesothelioma and potentially could be combined with other mesothelial markers or a broad-spectrum carcinoma marker to reach an accurate diagnosis with relatively few immunostains, The relatively low specificity and difficulty of interpreting DAB2 staining limits its utility for mesothelioma diagnosis.

Identification and characterization of effusion tumor cells (ETCs) from remnant pleural effusion specimens

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, and patients may have advanced disease when diagnosed. Targeted therapies guided by molecular subtyping of cancer can benefit patients significantly. Pleural effusions are frequently observed in patients with metastatic cancer and are routinely removed for therapeutic purposes; however, effusion specimens have not been recognized as typical substrates for clinical molecular testing because of frequent low tumor cellularity.

METHODS

Excess remnant pleural effusion samples (N = 25) from 21 patients with and without suspected malignancy were collected at Stanford Health Care between December 2019 and November 2020. Samples were processed into ThinPrep slides and underwent novel effusion tumor cell (ETC) analysis. The ETC results were compared with the original clinical diagnoses for accuracy. A subset of confirmed ETCs was further isolated and processed for molecular profiling to identify cancer driver mutations. All samples were obtained with Institutional Review Board approval.

RESULTS

The authors established novel quantitative standards to identify ETCs and detected epithelial malignancy with 89.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity in the pleural effusion samples. Molecular profiling of confirmed ETCs (pools of 5 cells evaluated) revealed key pathogenic mutations consistent with clinical molecular findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the authors developed a novel ETC-testing assay that detected epithelial malignancies in pleural effusions with high sensitivity and specificity. Molecular profiling of 5 ETCs showed promising concordance with the clinical molecular findings. To promote cancer subtyping and guide treatment, this ETC-testing assay will need to be validated in larger patient cohorts to facilitate integration into cytologic workflow.

Immunocytochemistry for diagnostic cytopathology-A practical guide

Cytological specimens, which are obtained by minimally invasive methods, are an excellent source of diagnostic material. Sometimes they are the only material available for diagnosis as well as for prognostic/predictive markers. When cytomorphology is not straightforward, ancillary tests may be required for a definitive diagnosis to guide clinical management. Immunocytochemistry (ICC) is the most common and practical ancillary tool used to reach a diagnosis when cytomorphology is equivocal, to differentiate entities with overlapping morphological features, and to determine the cell lineage and the site of origin of a metastatic neoplasm. Numerous immunomarkers are available, and some are expressed in multiple neoplasms. To rule out entities within a differential diagnosis, the use of more than one marker, sometimes panels, is necessary. ICC panels for diagnostic purposes should be customised based on the clinical context and cytomorphology, and the markers should be used judiciously to preserve material for additional tests for targeted therapies in the appropriate setting. This review offers a practical guide for the use of ICC for diagnostic cytopathology, covering the most commonly encountered non-hematolymphoid diagnostic scenarios in various body sites.

When the Diagnosis of Mesothelioma Challenges Textbooks and Guidelines

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MPM) does not pose difficulties when presenting with usual clinico-radiologic features and morphology. Pathology textbooks and national/international guidelines generally describe the findings of classic MPM, underlining common clinical presentation, the gold standard of sampling techniques, usual morphologic variants, immunohistochemical results of several positive and negative primary antibodies in the differential diagnosis, and the role of novel molecular markers. Nevertheless, MPM often does not follow the golden rules in routine practice, while the literature generally does not sufficiently emphasize unusual features of its manifestation. This gap may potentially create problems for patients in sustaining a difficult diagnosis of MPM in clinical practice and during legal disputes. Indeed, the guidelines accidentally tend to favor the job of lawyers and pathologists defending asbestos-producing industries against patients suffering from MPM characterized by uncommon features. The current review is aimed at underlining the wide spectrum of clinical and radiological presentation of MPM, the possibility to consistently use cytology for diagnostic intent, the aberrant immunohistochemical expression using so-called specific negative and positive primary antibodies, and finally proposing some alternative and more unbiased approaches to the diagnosis of MPM.

The "Brescia panel" (Claudin-4 and BRCA-associated protein 1) in the differential diagnosis of mesotheliomas with epithelioid features versus metastatic carcinomas

BACKGROUND

The distinction between mesothelioma with epithelioid features and metastatic carcinoma may be challenging, particularly on cytology. A novel 2-hit Claudin-4 and BRCA-associated protein 1 (BAP1) panel was investigated.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the panel on cytology from pleural effusions and matched biopsies, including 49 malignant mesotheliomas on cytology with 43 matched biopsies, 49 normal/reactive mesothelial proliferations, and 49 pleural metastatic carcinomas from different primaries with 21 matched pleural biopsies. The diagnostic role of the 4 categories obtained by crossing the immunostaining results was analyzed.

RESULTS

Claudin-4 strongly stained all metastatic carcinomas and tested completely negative in normal mesothelium, benign reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, and malignant mesothelioma. All normal and benign mesothelial proliferations and all carcinomas except 1 were immunoreactive for BAP1, whereas BAP1 loss was observed in 88% of malignant mesotheliomas. The expression of Claudin-4 alone excluded all benign and malignant mesothelial growth, consistently characterizing all metastatic carcinomas. Double negativity was evident in all malignant mesotheliomas, and double positivity was observed in all metastatic carcinomas. BAP1-positive/Claudin-4-negative status was observed only in malignant mesotheliomas and benign mesothelial proliferations. A single metastatic anal squamous cell carcinoma had BAP1-negative/Claudin-4-positive staining.

CONCLUSIONS

Claudin-4 expression was completely specific and sensitive for metastatic carcinoma, excluding mesothelial proliferations. BAP1 staining characterized 98% of metastatic carcinomas and 100% of benign mesothelial proliferations, whereas negativity was observed almost exclusively in mesotheliomas. This 2-hit panel is probably the best compromise for differentiating malignant mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma on either cytology or biopsy specimens.