Lymphohistiocytoid Variant of Malignant Mesothelioma of the Pleura: A Series of 22 Cases

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.

Diffuse Pleural Mesothelioma: Advances in Molecular Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Diffuse pleural mesothelioma (DPM) is a highly aggressive malignant neoplasm arising from the mesothelial cells lining the pleural surfaces. While DPM is a well-recognized disease linked to asbestos exposure, recent advances have expanded our understanding of molecular pathogenesis and transformed our clinical practice. This comprehensive review explores the current concepts and emerging trends in DPM, including risk factors, pathobiology, histologic subtyping, and therapeutic management, with an emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach to this complex disease.

The 2021 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Pleura: Advances since the 2015 Classification

Significant changes in the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumors of the Pleura and Pericardium since the 2015 WHO Classification include: 1) Pleural and pericardial tumors have been combined in one chapter whereas in the 2015 WHO, pericardial tumors were classified with cardiac tumors; 2) Well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma (WDPM) has been renamed well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor (WDPMT) given growing evidence that these tumors exhibit relatively indolent behavior; 3) Localized and diffuse mesothelioma no longer include the term "malignant" as a prefix; 4) Mesothelioma in situ (MIS) has been added to the 2021 classification since these lesions can now be recognized by loss of BAP1 and/or MTAP by immunohistochemistry and/or CDKN2A homozygous deletion by FISH; 5) The three main histologic subtypes (i.e. epithelioid, biphasic and sarcomatoid) remain the same but architectural patterns, cytologic and stromal features are more formally incorporated into the 2021 classification based on their prognostic significance; 6) Nuclear grading for epithelioid diffuse mesothelioma is introduced and it is recommended to record this and other histologically prognostic features in pathology reports; 7) BAP1, EZH2 and MTAP immunohistochemistry have been shown to be useful in separating benign mesothelial proliferations from mesothelioma; 8) Biphasic mesothelioma can be diagnosed in small biopsies showing both epithelioid and sarcomatoid components even if the amount of one component is less than 10%; and 9) The most frequently altered genes in diffuse pleural mesothelioma include BAP 1, CDKN2A, NF2, TP53, SETD2 and SETB1.

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.

Pathology of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Despite multiple diagnostic toolkits, the diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma relies primarily on proper histologic assessment. The definitive diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma is based on the pathologic assessment of tumor tissue, which can be obtained from core biopsy sampling, pleurectomy, or other more extensive resections, such as extrapleural pneumonectomy. Given its rarity and overlapping microscopic features with other conditions, the histologic diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma is challenging. This review discusses the pathologic features and the differential diagnosis of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma, including select diagnostic pitfalls.

Pleural mesothelioma classification update

The 2015 WHO classification of pleural mesotheliomas includes three major histologic subtypes-epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic. Recent genomic data has supported the need for a more granular and clinically valid classification beyond the three current subtypes. Because of tumor rarity and overlapping histologic features with other tumor types, diagnostic immunohistochemical work up is essential component in establishing the final diagnosis of mesothelioma. The use of BAP1 and CDKN2A/MTAP improves the diagnostic sensitivity of effusion specimens and are valuable in establishing the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma. The major change in the forthcoming WHO classification is the inclusion of mesothelioma in situ as a diagnostic category. In this review, we discuss recently proposed changes in the histologic classification of pleural mesothelioma, differential diagnosis, and importance of ancillary diagnostic studies.

Utility of Nuclear Grading System in Epithelioid Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in Biopsy-heavy Setting: An External Validation Study of 563 Cases

Nuclear grading systems for epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have been proposed but it remains uncertain if they could be applied in a biopsy-heavy setting. Using the proposed system, we conducted an independent, external validation study using 563 consecutive cases of epithelioid MPM diagnosed at our institution between 2003 and 2017, of which 87% of patients underwent biopsies only. The median number of sites sampled was 1, with a median maximum tissue dimension of 17 mm (biopsy) and 150 mm (resection). The median overall survival (OS) was 14.7 months. The frequencies of grade I, II, and III tumors were 31% (132/563), 52% (292/563), and 17% (94/563). Grade I tumors were associated with the most favorable median OS (24.7 mo) followed by grades II (12.7 mo) and III (7.2 mo). The 2-tier nuclear grade separated tumors into low grade (19.3 mo) and high grade (8.9 mo). In multivariate analysis, 3-tier nuclear grade, 2-tier nuclear grade, and mitosis-necrosis score predicted OS independent of age, procedural type, solid-predominant growth pattern, necrosis, and atypical mitosis (all P<0.001 except 2-tier nuclear grade, P=0.001). In the scenario of a single- site biopsy with tissue dimension ≤10 mm, none but age (P=0.002) were independently predictive. Our data also suggested sampling 3 sites or a maximum tissue dimension of at least 20 mm from a single site is optimal for nuclear grade assessment. In conclusion our study confirmed the utility of nuclear grade in epithelioid MPM using a biopsy-heavy cohort provided the tissue sample met minimum dimensional criteria.

Clinical significance of histologic subtyping of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is uncommon, but very aggressive tumor arising from the mesothelial cells of pleura, pericardium, peritoneum, and tunica vaginalis. Despite multimodality treatments 5-year survival is only 5% after the diagnosis. Histology and TNM staging system are still the best prognostic factors. Furthermore, histologic subtype of MM determines the clinical management of the patients. According to the 2015 WHO classification, MM is divided into diffuse, localized and well differentiated papillary mesothelioma. Major histologic subtypes of diffuse MM, namely epithelioid, biphasic and sarcomatoid, have different prognosis. However, in the last decade it has become evident that more detailed subclassification and histologic/cytological characterization of MM have prognostic and perhaps predictive implications. In this review, major histologic subtypes and cytological features of MM are presented and their relation with prognosis and predictive biomarkers is discussed.

Diagnosis of Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm that arises from mesothelial cells lining body cavities including the pleura, pericardium, peritoneum, and tunica vaginalis. Most malignant mesotheliomas occur in the chest and are frequently associated with a history of asbestos exposure. The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma is challenging and fraught with pitfalls, particularly in small biopsies. This article highlights what the pathologist needs to know regarding the clinical and radiographic presentation of mesothelioma, histologic features including subtypes and variants, and recent advances in immunohistochemical markers and molecular testing.

Diffuse mesothelioma of the peritoneum: a pathological study of 64 tumours treated with cytoreductive therapy

BACKGROUND

Diffuse peritoneal mesothelioma (DPM) forms a spectrum of indolent surface tumours to malignant invasive cancers. There are few pathological series that span well and poorly differentiated lesions that show diffuse peritoneal spread.

METHODS

Sixty-four DPM treated by initial cytoreductive therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Tumours were classified by surface and invasive growth pattern and correlated with risk factors, peritoneal cancer index (PCI) and completeness of cytoreduction (CCR). Degree of invasion was quantitated as absent (0), into stroma (I), into fat (II), and into adjacent structures (III) and was correlated with cytological features. Selected immunohistochemical stains were performed.

RESULTS

There were three well differentiated papillary mesotheliomas (WDPM; type A), four multicystic mesothelioma (type B), 22 tubulopapillary epithelioid mesotheliomas (type C), and 35 poorly differentiated epithelioid mesotheliomas with solid or sarcomatoid growth (Type D). Seven type D tumours had prominent sarcomatoid areas, 12 deciduoid areas, and four lymphohistiocytoid features. Risk factors were present in all groups except type A, and included prior abdominal surgery (n=24), asbestos exposure (n=5) and radiation (n=2). Extra-pleural mesothelioma was present in all groups except type B (total n=7, 11%). Two type A and eight type C tumours lacked invasion; only type D showed level III invasion. The invasive portion of one type A tumour and two type B tumours showed adenomatoid features. PCI and CCR were greater in type D compared to the other groups (p=0.02), as well as mitotic rate, degree of necrosis, and nuclear pleomorphism (p<0.001). Degree of invasion was strongly correlated with CCR (p=0.007), necrosis (p<0.0001), nuclear grade (p<0.0001), and mitotic rate (p=0.001), but not PCI (p=0.1). Immunohistochemical results were similar across groups, with frequent positivity for CA125 (94%), EGFR (94%) and calretinin (93%), followed by p16 (85%), cytokeratin 5,6 (76%), D2-40 (71%) and WT-1 (47%). PAX-8 was negative in all tumours, except one type A tumour that showed diffuse nuclear positivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Diffuse peritoneal mesotheliomas can be classified into four groups that reflect invasive potential, degree of adverse histological features, and amenability for CCR. Non-invasive tumours include both type A and type C tumours.

Challenges and controversies in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma: Part 2. Malignant mesothelioma subtypes, pleural synovial sarcoma, molecular and prognostic aspects of mesothelioma, BAP1, aquaporin-1 and microRNA

Pleural malignant mesothelioma (MM) includes several unusual and even rare but distinctive histological subtypes, in addition to the usual subdivision into epithelioid, biphasic and sarcomatoid MM. Criteria for discrimination between fibrous pleuritis versus desmoplastic mesothelioma include evidence of neoplastic invasion for diagnosis of desmoplastic MM, but this histological assessment is complicated by the recently-described 'fake fat phenomenon' in cases of fibrous pleuritis. The distinction between biphasic and monophasic synovial sarcoma of the pleura versus biphasic and sarcomatoid MM can be problematical and is most cogently based upon molecular detection of the t(X;18) translocation, whereas a clear diagnosis of MM for a pleural tumour histologically resembling synovial sarcoma is favoured by a negative result for this translocation and, probably, microRNA evidence supportive of a diagnosis of MM. Aquaporin-1 (AQP1) is a molecule involved in the growth of MM cells, and yet is a factor reported to correlate with improved survival rates for MM with an epithelioid component, in comparison to AQP1-poor MM, as assessed from AQP1 expression by epithelioid MM cells only (apart from co-expression by stromal endothelial cells in addition to the tumour cells). Recent reports have also focused upon germline mutations in the BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1), not only in cases of familial mesothelioma, but also BAP1 deletion in sporadic MM. Prognostic factors for MM include not only the histological subtypes, but other independent variables that include (among others), AQP1 expression by mesothelioma cells, the clinical status of the patient, the serum neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio and blood thrombocytosis.

Application of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma: a review and update

A large number of immunohistochemical markers that can assist in the differential diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas are currently available. Because these markers are expressed differently in the various types of carcinomas that can metastasize to the serosal membranes and can potentially be confused with epithelioid mesothelioma, their selection for inclusion in a diagnostic panel largely depends on the differential diagnosis, as well as on which ones work the best in a given laboratory. Traditionally, the panels used in the differential diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma have consisted of a combination of positive mesothelioma markers and broad-spectrum carcinoma markers. At present, a wide variety of organ-associated carcinoma markers such as thyroid transcription factor-1 and napsin A for the lung, PAX 8 and PAX 2 for the kidney, and Müllerian-derived tumors; gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 and mammaglobin for the breast; and CDX2 for intestinal differentiation are available, which can assist in establishing the site of origin of an adenocarcinoma when included in a diagnostic panel. This article provides updated information on the composition of the panels of markers recommended in the various differential diagnoses.

Lymphoproliferative conditions of the serosa

CONTEXT

A diverse and complex variety of lymphoproliferative diseases may involve the serosa, with widely differing clinical outcomes encompassing a spectrum of benign and malignant conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To review lymphoproliferative disease involving the serosa and to provide a practical approach to the evaluation of lymphoid and plasma cell infiltrates in the serosa, together with a review of various tumors and tumorlike conditions that may mimic lymphoproliferative disease.

DATA SOURCES

Analysis of published literature.

CONCLUSIONS

All forms of hematologic malignancy may involve the various serosal sites, although this is usually observed as secondary involvement in persons with known lymph nodal, marrow-based, or extranodal disease. Primary pericardial, pleural, and peritoneal lymphomas are rare; many nonneoplastic conditions may mimic lymphoma and a variety of nonhematolymphoid tumors may simulate hematologic malignancies. An understanding of the role of ancillary tests, together with an appreciation of their limitations, will prevent misdiagnosis.

Lymphohistiocytoid mesothelioma of the pleura: a case report with cytological findings

Lymphohistiocytoid malignant mesothelioma is an infrequent variant of sarcomatoid mesothelioma representing approximately 0.5-3.3% of malignant mesotheliomas. It has been related to asbestos exposure. The tumor is characterized by a diffuse large histiocyte-like cells proliferation mixed with an inflammatory infiltrate of lymphocytes and plasma cells. Its cytological diagnosis is difficult. We present a case of a 67-year-old female with lymphohistiocytoid mesothelioma involving the left pleura. The cytological, histological, and immunohistochemical features are discussed.

Lymphohistiocytoid mesothelioma of the pleura

Lymphohistiocytoid mesothelioma (LHM), reported to be a rare variant of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, is challenging to differentiate from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma due to marked lymphocytic infiltration. To aid accurate recognition of LHM, we examined immunohistochemical, in situ hybridization (ISH) of Epstein-Barr virus RNA (EBER-1) mRNA, fluorescence ISH (FISH) for homozygous deletion of 9p21, and asbestos analysis in four cases (three men and 1 woman). Three patients died, while Case 4 was still alive 19 months after extrapleural pneumonectomy. Histologically, these cases were characterized by heavy lymphocytic infiltration. All neoplastic cells were positive for calretinin, AE1/AE3, and epithelial membrane antigen, but negative for CEA. EBER1 factor was negative. FISH analysis demonstrated homozygous deletion of the 9p21 locus in three of the four cases. In Case 1: (i) autopsy findings showed mesothelioma primarily located in the right parietal pleura, but metastasized into the left lung and abdominal organs; (ii) the histological findings at autopsy indicated sarcomatoid mesothelioma; and (iii) we found asbestos bodies and fibers in extracts from lung tissue (Cases 1 & 4) using digestion with bleaching fluid. LHM, an infrequent variant of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, displayed homozygous deletion of the 9p21 locus (three of four cases), and has a relatively favorable prognosis for the sarcomatoid type.

Benign and Malignant Mesothelial Proliferation

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare primary malignant tumor of the surface serosal cells. The diagnosis of MM is challenging with a broad differential diagnosis. For many decades, studies have focused on distinguishing MM from other types of cancer; however, benign mesothelial cell hyperplasia, especially in small biopsies, has emerged as a major problem. The features of pleural lesions are somewhat different from peritoneal diseases, and this article primarily focuses on pleural diseases. Thorough interpretation and correlation of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings are essential for a correct diagnosis.

Problems in mesothelioma diagnosis

Many centres are now seeing increasing numbers of patients with malignant mesothelioma. This presents pathologists involved in making the diagnosis with a number of problems, which can be divided into those encountered in making the distinction between mesothelioma and benign changes and those experienced in separating mesotheliomas from other types of epithelial and connective tissue tumours. Immunohistochemistry plays a major role in helping to make the diagnosis, but it should be interpreted with due regard to the clinical setting and radiological features, and with a knowledge of the wide morphological variations seen in mesothelioma. This review identifies some of these problems and addresses the uses and limitations of immunohistochemistry in different situations. It includes a discussion of some of the less common variants of mesothelioma and other pleural-based tumours that enter into the differential diagnosis.