Immunohistochemical reactivity in mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma: a stepwise logistic regression analysis

Immunocytochemistry of effusions: Processing and commonly used immunomarkers

Definitive cytopathological interpretation of some of the effusion fluids may not be possible based on cytomorphological evaluation alone. As discussed in other reviews, this is due to various reasons specifically applicable to effusion fluids including remarkably wide morphologic spectrum of reactive mesothelial cells overlapping with some well to moderately differentiated metastatic carcinoma. The challenge is subject to various factors including level of interpreter training or experience, institutional demographics (such as type of prevalent diseases, predominant sex and age group), technical advances in ancillary support, and expertise in cytopreparatory processing. In such cases immunohistochemistry performed on cell-block sections is simple objective adjunct with or without other ancillary techniques. Ongoing increase in number of immunomarkers along with rabbit monoclonal antibodies with relatively higher affinity is further refining this field. SCIP (subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern) approach, discussed as separate dedicated review article, facilitates refined interpretation of immunoreactivity pattern in coordinate manner on various serial sections of cell-blocks. However, many variables such as delay after specimen collection, specimen processing related factors including fixation and storage; ambient conditions under which paraffin blocks are archived (for retrospective testing); antigen retrieval method; duration of antigen retrieval step; antibody clone and dilution; and antibody application time are common with application of immunohistochemistry in other areas. This review is dedicated to highlight technical aspects including processing of effusion specimens for optimum immunocytochemical evaluation along with commonly used immunomarkers in effusion cytopathology. This review focuses on the technical and general information about various immunomarkers.

Differential Diagnosis of Epithelioid Malignant Mesothelioma With Lung and Breast Pleural Metastasis: A Systematic Review Compared With a Standardized Panel of Antibodies-A New Proposal That May Influence Pathologic Practice

CONTEXT.—

Pleural mesothelioma is a rare cancer with an often-challenging diagnosis because of its potential to be a great mimicker of many other tumors. Among them, primary lung and breast cancers are the 2 main causes of pleural metastasis. The development and application of targeted therapeutic agents have made it even more important to achieve an accurate diagnosis. In this setting, international guidelines have recommended the use of 2 positive and 2 negative immunohistochemical biomarkers.

OBJECTIVES.—

To define the most highly specific and sensitive minimum set of antibodies for routine practice to use for the separation of epithelioid malignant mesothelioma from lung and breast metastasis and to determine the most relevant expression cutoff.

DESIGN.—

To provide information at different levels of expression of 16 mesothelial and epithelial biomarkers, we performed a systematic review of articles published between 1979 and 2017, and we compared those data to results from the Mesothelioma Telepathology Network (MESOPATH) of the standardized panel used in routine practice database since 1998.

RESULTS.—

Our results indicate that the following panel of markers-calretinin (poly)/thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1; clone 8G7G3/1) and calretinin (poly)/estrogen receptor-α (ER-α; clone EP1)-should be recommended; ultimately, based on the MESOPATH database, we highlight their relevance which are the most sensitive and specific panel useful to the differential diagnosis at 10% cutoff.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Highlighted by their relevance in the large cohort reported, we recommend 2 useful panels to the differential diagnosis at 10% cutoff.

Diagnosis of epithelial mesothelioma using tree-based regression analysis and a minimal panel of antibodies

AIMS

Immunohistochemistry with panels of antibodies is a standard procedure to distinguish between malignant mesothelioma and metastatic adenocarcinoma. Most studies assess only the sensitivity and specificity for single antibodies, even when the paper concludes by recommending an antibody panel. It was the aim of this study to use a novel statistical approach to identify a minimal panel of antibodies, which would make this distinction in the majority of cases.

METHODS

Two hundred consecutive cases of pleural malignancy (173 pleural mesotheliomas of epithelial type and 27 cases of secondary adenocarcinoma) were investigated using a standard panel of 12 antibodies (CAM5.2, CK5/6, calretinin, HBME-1, thrombomodulin, WT-1, EMA, CEA, CD15, B72.3, BG8, and TTF-1). Regression and classification tree-based methods were applied to select the best combination of markers. The modelling procedures used employ successive, hierarchical predictions computed for individual cases to sort them into homogeneous classes.

RESULTS

Labelling for calretinin and lack of labelling for BG8 were sufficient for definite correlation with a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. CD15 provided further differentiating information in some cases.

CONCLUSION

A panel of three antibodies was sufficient in most cases to diagnose, or to exclude, epithelial mesothelioma. Calretinin exhibits the strongest correlative power of the antibodies tested.

Applications and limitations of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is an uncommon malignant epithelial neoplasm originating from the serosal surface of body cavities. Because serosal surfaces are a common site of metastatic spread for a variety of malignant neoplasms originating from internal organs, separating malignant mesothelioma from metastatic tumors is of clinical importance. The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma is complex and usually requires a multimodal approach that includes careful clinical history and physical examination, imaging studies, and tissue sampling for multimodal evaluation including routine histology, histochemistry, electron microscopy, and immunohistochemical tests. Of these, immunohistochemistry has emerged as the most valuable and readily available modality for the routine evaluation of these tumors. Unfortunately, no specific antibodies have yet been developed that can be accepted as exclusive for these tumors. The immunohistochemical diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma therefore depends on the use of a panel of stains that includes markers that are commonly expected to react with these tumors ("positive" markers) and markers that are not commonly expected to react with these tumors ("negative" markers). Additionally, the selection and utility of these various markers can vary considerably based on a constellation of circumstances, including patient sex, histologic appearance of the tumor (ie, epithelioid vs. sarcomatoid, etc), and various other clinical circumstances. Herein, we will review the currently available immunohistochemical markers used for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma and offer suggestions for the use of appropriate panels of stains based on specific morphologic types and clinical circumstances.

Sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemical markers used in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma: a detailed systematic analysis using published data

AIMS

Immunohistochemistry is frequently employed to aid the distinction between mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura, but there is uncertainty as to which antibodies are most useful. We analysed published data in order to establish sensitivity and specificity of antibodies used to distinguish between these tumours with a view to defining the most appropriate immunohistochemical panel to use when faced with this diagnostic problem.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic analysis of the results of 88 published papers comparing immunohistochemical staining of a panel of antibodies in mesothelioma with epithelioid areas, and pulmonary adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura. Results for a total of 15 antibodies were analysed and expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The most sensitive antibodies for identifying pulmonary adenocarcinoma were MOC-31 and BG8 (both 93%), whilst the most specific were monoclonal CEA (97%) and TTF-1 (100%). The most sensitive antibodies to identify epithelioid mesothelioma were CK5/6 (83%) and HBME-1 (85%). The most specific antibodies were CK5/6 (85%) and WT1 (96%).

CONCLUSIONS

No single antibody is able to differentiate reliably between these two tumours. The use of a small panel of antibodies with a high combined sensitivity and specificity is recommended.

The combination of CEA, EMA, and BerEp4 and hyaluronan analysis specifically identifies 79% of all histologically verified mesotheliomas causing an effusion

A previously tested antibody panel identified three criteria of major importance for distinguishing between mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma (ACA): carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), BerEp4, and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) accentuated at the cell membrane. An extended panel, consisting of CEA, BerEp4, EMA, vimentin, mesothelioma antibody (HBME-1), thrombomodulin, Ca125, and sialyl-Tn was applied to effusions from 86 ACAs and 21 mesotheliomas. The specificities and sensitivities of the previously identified reactivity patterns were tested on the new material and the effect of the added antibodies was evaluated. Further, hyaluronan analysis was added as a parameter. The previously selected criteria remained fully predictive for mesothelioma and ACA, respectively, also in the extended material (in all, 139 ACAs and 57 mesotheliomas). With the addition of the hyaluronan value, 79% of the cases was identified with 100% specificity. Among the new antibodies sialyl-Tn seemed the most promising because it specifically identified ACAs not expressing CEA.

The immunohistochemical diagnosis of mesothelioma: a comparative study of epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma

A large number of immunohistochemical markers that can facilitate the distinction between epithelioid pleural mesotheliomas and pulmonary peripheral adenocarcinomas have recently become available. The aim of this study is to compare the value of these new markers with others that are already commonly used for this purpose and to determine which are, at present, the best for discriminating between these malignancies. Sixty epithelioid mesotheliomas and 50 lung adenocarcinomas were investigated for expression of the following markers: calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, WT1, thrombomodulin, mesothelin, CD44S, HBME-1, N-cadherin, E-cadherin, MOC-31, thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1), BG-8 (Lewisy), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Ber-EP4, B72.3 (TAG-72), leu-M1 (CD15), CA19-9, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), and vimentin. All (100%) of the mesotheliomas reacted for calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, and mesothelin, 93% for WT1, 93% for EMA, 85% for HBME-1, 77% for thrombomodulin; 73% for CD44S, 73% for N-cadherin, 55% for vimentin, 40% for E-cadherin, 18% for Ber-EP4, 8% for MOC-31, 7% for BG-8, and none for CEA, B72.3, leu-M1, TTF-1, or CA19-9. Of the adenocarcinomas, 100% were positive for MOC-31, Ber-EP4, and EMA, 96% for BG-8, 88% for CEA, 88% for E-cadherin, 84% for B72.3, 74% for TTF-1, 72% for leu-M1, 68% for HBME-1, 48% for CD44S, 48% for CA19-9, 38% for mesothelin, 38% for vimentin, 30% for N-cadherin, 14% for thrombomodulin, 8% for calretinin, 2% for cytokeratin 5/6, and none for WT1. After analyzing the results, it is concluded that calretinin, cytokeratin 5/6, and WT1 are the best positive markers for differentiating epithelioid malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The best discriminators among the antibodies considered to be negative markers for mesothelioma are CEA, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, BG-8, and B72.3. A panel of four markers (two positive and two negative) selected based upon availability and which ones yield good staining results in a given laboratory is recommended. Because of their specificity and sensitivity for mesotheliomas, the best combination appears to be calretinin and cytokeratin 5/6 (or WT1) for the positive markers and CEA and MOC-31 (or B72.3, Ber-EP4, or BG-8) for the negative markers. An extensive and detailed review of the literature is also provided.

Specificity of MOC-31 and HBME-1 immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of adenocarcinoma and malignant mesothelioma: a study on environmental malignant mesothelioma cases from Turkish villages

Histological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) and differentiation from adenocarcinoma is often difficult. A number of clinical, radiologic, histologic and histochemical criteria have been used as diagnostic aids, but most cases cannot be readily classified on the basis of these characteristics. In recent years, a panel of immunohistochemical anti-bodies have been increasingly applied for the differential diagnosis of these two tumors. MOC-31 has been recently used as specific for adenocarcinomas while reacting with a minimal number of benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations, and HBME-1 has also been presented as a mesothelial cell marker. In this study, we aimed to show the importance of these two antibodies among the environmental MM cases from Southeastern Turkey. Fifty five cases of MM and twenty adenocarcinomas were included in this study. Histochemical (PAS, PAS-D, mucicarmine) and immunohistochemical (Keratin, EMA,CEA, MOC-31, HBME-1) stains have been performed on each case. Keratin was positive in all cases. EMA stained 50 of 55 MM and all the adenocarcinoma cases. According to our results, dPAS, mucicarmen, CEA and MOC-31 positivity was statistically significant in the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma whereas HBME-1 was demonstrable in most MM cases (52/55) and 11 adenocarcinoma cases. This study confirmed that in the diagnostic distinction between MM and adenocarcinoma, immuno-histochemistry is an important diagnostic tool, however, a panel of antibodies must be used rather than any single antibody. HBME-1 should be included in this panel; MOC-31 can be used where CEA is not available or to doublecheck the reactivity of this antibody.

Immunohistochemical diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas: a critical review of old markers, new markers

Numerous new immunohistochemical markers that can be used in the diagnosis of mesothelioma have recently become available. As a result, new panels of antibodies that could be useful for distinguishing between epithelioid mesotheliomas and adenocarcinomas have been proposed. However, great differences of opinion exist regarding the individual value of some of these markers, especially when compared with those whose value has already been established. This article provides a critical review of the currently available information on those markers that could be useful in the diagnosis of epithelioid mesotheliomas or whose utility remains controversial. A practical approach to the diagnosis of these tumors is also provided.

Combined use of novel epithelial (MOC-31) and mesothelial (HBME-1) immunohistochemical markers for optimal first line diagnostic distinction between mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma in pleura

AIMS

To determine the value of immunohistochemistry in differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma from carcinoma in a pleural biopsy we optimized a double panel of MOC-31 and HBME-1 and compared the results with others from the literature.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A multi-antibody panel was applied to biopsy samples from 44 cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma and 23 cases of carcinoma metastatic to the pleura. We used monoclonal antibodies against keratins, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), epithelial antigen Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tumour-associated glycoprotein (B72.3), LeuM1, vimentin, desmin, epithelial related antigen (MOC-31) and mesothelial cell (HBME-1). Positivity for MOC-31 and Ber-EP4 was found to have the highest nosologic sensitivity (94.1% and 84.6%, respectively) and specificity (86.3% both antibodies) for carcinoma. Positive staining for HBME-1 and vimentin had the highest sensitivity (90.9% and 100%, respectively) and specificity (91.3% and 60%, respectively) for mesothelioma. A two-marker antibody panel with HBME-1 and MOC-31 was the most efficient for the distinction between carcinoma and malignant pleural mesothelioma.

CONCLUSION

A combination of MOC-31 (an anti- epithelial marker) and HBME-1 (an anti-mesothelial marker) has a diagnostic efficiency of 76.1% for the distinction between carcinoma and mesothelioma in pleura.

Pleural fluid cytology: immunocytochemistry usage patterns and significance of nondefinitive diagnoses

There has been little study of how pleural fluids are interpreted in actual practice, including the use of immunocytochemistry and nondefinitive diagnoses. Pleural fluid reports (n = 1,330) from 1991-1997 and the University of Iowa cancer database were retrospectively reviewed to determine the cytologic diagnosis, requisition form history, patient survival, and use of immunocytochemistry. Nondefinitive diagnoses were made in 11.3% of cases. Immunocytochemistry was used in 2.6% of cases and aided in making a definitive diagnosis in 71.9% of cases. For patients with a clinical suspicion of malignancy, the percentages of patients who had a nondefinitive, benign, and malignant diagnosis and died of disease were 81.6%, 94.0%, and 90.6%, respectively. In conclusion, if patients had a history of malignancy and a clinical suspicion of recurrence, patient survival was dismal, regardless of the cytologic diagnosis. Immunocytochemistry was used sparsely but often aided in making a definitive diagnosis.

Reactivity of six antibodies in effusions of mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and mesotheliosis: stepwise logistic regression analysis

Anti-CEA, anti-vimentin, CAM5.2, BerEp4, Leu-M1 and anti-EMA were applied to effusions from 36 mesotheliomas, 53 adenocarcinomas and 24 reactive mesothelial proliferations. Stepwise logistic regression analysis selected three criteria of major importance for distinguishing between adenocarcinoma and mesothelioma: BerEp4, CEA and EMA accentuated at the cell membrane (mEMA), these three being of similar diagnostic value. The pattern BerEp4-, CEA- and mEMA+ was fully predictive for mesothelioma (sensitivity 47%), whereas the opposite pattern was fully predictive for adenocarcinoma (sensitivity 80%). Only EMA seemed to distinguish between mesotheliosis and mesothelioma. Comparison of reactivity in cytological and histological material from the same mesotheliomas showed similar staining frequencies for CEA and CAM5.2, with some random variation for Leu-M1 and EMA, whereas vimentin and BerEp4 reactivity was more frequent in cytological specimens.

Role of immunohistochemistry in distinguishing epithelial peritoneal mesotheliomas from peritoneal and ovarian serous carcinomas

The histologic distinction between epithelial peritoneal mesothelioma and papillary serous carcinoma diffusely involving the peritoneum may be difficult. Although some investigators have indicated that immunohistochemistry can facilitate this differential diagnosis. only a few studies using a limited number of markers have been published. In this study, the immunoreactivity of keratin 5/6, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, thrombomodulin, calretinin, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen, TAG-72 (B72.3), CD15 (Leu-M1), placental alkaline phosphatase, CA19-9, CA-125, HBME-1, 44-3A6, and S-100 protein was investigated in 35 epithelial peritoneal mesotheliomas, and 45 papillary serous carcinomas [30 ovarian (10 primary and 20 metastatic to the peritoneum) and 15 papillary serous carcinomas of the peritoneum]. After analyzing the results, it is concluded that calretinin, thrombomodulin, and keratin 5/6 are the best positive markers for differentiating epithelial malignant mesotheliomas from papillary serous carcinomas diffusely involving the peritoneum. The best diagnostic discriminators among the antibodies considered to be negative markers for mesothelioma are MOC-31, B72.3, Ber-EP4, CA19-9, and Leu-M1. Immunostaining for carcinoembryonic antigen, placental alkaline phosphatase, epithelial membrane antigen, vimentin, HBME-1, 44-3A6, CA-125, or S-100 have little or no diagnostic utility in establishing the differential diagnosis between these conditions. The results of this study also confirm previous observations indicating that both papillary serous carcinomas of the peritoneum and serous carcinomas of the ovary have a similar phenotype and, therefore, immunohistochemical studies are not useful in separating these entities.

A comparative evaluation of immunohistochemical markers for the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural tumours

AIMS

To determine the value of immunocytochemistry in differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma from carcinoma in a pleural biopsy using commercially available monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A panel of monoclonal antibodies against keratins, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), epithelial antigen Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tumour-associated glycoprotein (B72.3), Leu-M1, CD30 (Ber-H2), vimentin and desmin, was applied to 40 cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma and 23 cases of carcinoma metastatic to the pleura (16 pulmonary and seven extrapulmonary). Positivities for Ber-EP4, CEA, B72.3 and Leu-M1 were found to have the highest nosologic sensitivities (87.0%, 65.2%, 52.5% and 43.5%, respectively) and specificities (97.5%, 97.5%, 100% and 95%, respectively) for carcinoma. Positive staining for vimentin had the highest sensitivity (87.5%) with 95.7% specificity for mesothelioma. Positive staining for desmin was found in 45% of mesotheliomas and 0% of carcinomas. Diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity (P-values) were calculated for these markers. In respect to the diagnostic power defined by the clinically relevant predictive values of positive and negative tests, we found that a two-marker panel of antibodies including vimentin and Ber-EP4 is most useful for the histopathological distinction between carcinoma (pulmonary or extrapulmonary) and malignant pleural mesothelioma.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of Ber-EP4 and vimentin provides the most sensitive and specific pair of markers for distinguishing between malignant pleural mesothelioma and carcinoma metastatic to the pleura. The prevalence of the tested tumours should be taken into account when evaluating the clinical value of ancillary techniques in pathology.

Utility of the antibodies CA 19-9, HBME-1, and thrombomodulin in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma in cytology

BACKGROUND

The distinction between malignant mesothelioma (MM) and adenocarcinoma (ACA) in cytologic specimens frequently is difficult, often requiring immunocytochemistry to support the diagnosis. Recent reports have proposed the utilization of antibodies to mesothelial cell clone HBME-1 and thrombomodulin (TM), because they are immunoreactive in MM and less commonly reactive in ACA. Immunoreactivity for the monoclonal antibody CA 19-9 has been observed in many ACAs and reportedly is absent in MM.

METHODS

In this study, immunostaining was performed on formalin fixed, paraffin embedded cell blocks from effusions or fine-needle aspirations using the avidin-biotin-peroxidase method. Thirty-eight MMs and 49 ACAs were tested using antibodies to CA 19-9, HBME-1, and TM.

RESULTS

Anti-CA 19-9 stained only 1 of the 37 cases of MM tested (3%), but stained 24 of the 49 cases of ACA (49%). Anti-HBME-1 stained 34 of 38 cases of MM (89%), and 28 of 43 cases of ACA tested (65%). Anti-TM stained 24 of 36 cases of MM (67%), and 21 of 40 cases of ACA tested (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

CA 19-9 has utility as part of an immunocytochemical panel for distinguishing ACA from MM, because a positive staining reaction would make the diagnosis of MM unlikely. Although HBME-1 and TM can identify MM positively, each frequently is detected in ACA, thus limiting the utility of these antibodies in cytologic specimens.

Immunoreactivity of pleural malignant mesotheliomas to glutathione S-transferases

Malignant mesotheliomas show a highly variable aggressiveness, but it is difficult to predict the outcome in the individual case at the time of diagnosis. Glutathione S-transferases are detoxification enzymes that have been correlated with the prognosis in some tumours. We have therefore assessed the value of GST expression as a prognostic parameter in mesotheliomas. The reactivities to GST-pi, -alpha and -mu antibodies were studied in histological sections from altogether 88 cases. Most of them showed distinct cytoplasmic reactivity to one or more of the GST antibodies tested. This high prevalence is in good agreement with the low responsiveness of mesotheliomas to chemotherapy. However, there was no prognostic value in detecting GST immunoreactivity, and it gave no information of value for distinguishing between neoplastic and reactive mesothelium.

TTF-1 protein expression in pleural malignant mesotheliomas and adenocarcinomas of the lung

TTF-1 is a tissue-specific transcription factor expressed in the epithelial cells of thyroid and lung. This study investigates the immunohistochemical expression of TTF-1 in pleural malignant mesotheliomas (MM) and adenocarcinomas (AC) of the lung, respectively. For this purpose, 33 biopsy specimens of pulmonary AC and 24 specimens of MM were studied. TTF-1 immunoreactivity was identified in 19 of 33 cases of AC (57.5%) and in none of the 24 cases of MM. Positivity for TTF-1 was 100% specific and 57.5% sensitive for lung AC. Alternatively, negativity for TTF-1 was 57.5% specific and 100% sensitive for MM. These results suggest that TTF-1 can be favourably added to the immunohistochemical diagnostic panel for distinction between AC of the lung involving the pleura and pleural MM.

The immunohistochemical diagnostic panel for epithelial mesothelioma: a reevaluation after heat-induced epitope retrieval

The immunohistochemical diagnosis between epithelial mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma is currently based on the use of a panel of antibodies to adenocarcinoma-associated antigens and a few antibodies to mesothelial-associated antigens. Since the introduction of epitope retrieval methods, the sensitivity of many antibodies has been enhanced. Thus, a reevaluation of the mesothelioma/adenocarcinoma diagnostic panel becomes necessary. We studied 268 paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed tumor samples that included 57 epithelial mesotheliomas and 211 adenocarcinomas of various origins, comparing an extensive antibody panel with and without heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER). Marked increase in the sensitivity of several antibodies, with no loss of specificity, was found when HIER was used. After statistical analysis, the antibodies to the epithelial glycoproteins carcinoembryonic antigen, BerEp4, and Bg8 emerged as the best discriminators between adenocarcinoma and epithelial mesothelioma within the entire panel. The mesothelium-associated antibodies, HBME-1, calretinin, and thrombomodulin were less sensitive and less specific than the former, although they were found to be useful on certain cases. Antibodies to cytokeratins and vimentin, although of minor diagnostic value in this context, may be helpful to evaluate the quality of antigen preservation. This study confirms the value of immunohistochemistry to accurately distinguish mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma when an antibody panel approach is used. The addition of heat-induced epitope retrieval methods increases the effectiveness of the procedure and is recommended for most of the antibody panel members.

The value of antibodies 44-3A6, SM3, HBME-1, and thrombomodulin in differentiating epithelial pleural mesothelioma from lung adenocarcinoma: a comparative study with other commonly used antibodies

The distinction between pleural mesothelioma and peripheral pulmonary adenocarcinoma involving the pleura continues to be a diagnostic problem in surgical pathology. In recent years, the use of various immunohistochemical markers to facilitate this differential diagnosis has become common. In this study, the value of monoclonal antibodies 44-3A6, SM3, HBME-1, and thrombomodulin is compared in the differentiation of these conditions. Fifteen (68.2%) of 22, and 10 (52.6%) of 19 mesotheliomas stained positively with 44-3A6 and SM3, respectively, whereas all 23 (100%) adenocarcinomas reacted with both antibodies. Sixteen (80%) of 20 mesotheliomas and 14 (63.6%) of 22 lung adenocarcinomas reacted with HBME-1, whereas 16 (80%) of 20 mesotheliomas and only three (11.1%) of 27 adenocarcinomas were positive for thrombomodulin. Because thrombomodulin was expressed in most mesotheliomas but in only a few lung adenocarcinomas, this marker may have some diagnostic value when it is included in the standard immunohistochemical panel of markers used in the evaluation of mesotheliomas, especially when a positive marker for mesothelioma is needed. Antibodies 44-3A6, SM3, and HBME-1 have no practical value in discriminating epithelial pleural mesothelioma from lung adenocarcinoma.

Optimization of a battery using nine immunocytochemical variables for distinguishing between epithelial mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma

A battery of immunocytochemical analyses, previously established to distinguish between malignant mesothelioma and metastatic adenocarcinoma, was extended by analysing the same cases with three other commercially available antibodies. Altogether, 11 antibodies were studied in mesotheliomas diagnosed by other means, using 14 different immunocytochemical parameters. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the following parameters were of importance for this diagnostic problem: vimentin reactivity in epithelial cells (1), cytokeratin (CAM 5.2) reactivity in spindle-shaped (fibrous) cells (2), cell membrane-associated reactivity of EMA (3), HBME-1 (4) and thrombomodulin (5), and absence of reactivity to CEA (6), CD15 (7), BerEp4 (8) and Sialyl-TN (9). The analysis gave an algorithm with which a specific diagnosis of mesothelioma could be made in 80% of the cases-i.e., some improvement compared to the 55% sensitivity using the previous battery.

Complementary value of five carcinoma markers for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma metastasis, and reactive mesothelium in serous effusions

Cytological slides of serous fluids of 41 malignant mesotheliomas, 88 metastatic adenocarcinomas, and 25 reactive effusions were immunostained with the antibodies anti-CEA, MOC-31, Leu-M1, Ber-EP4, and B72.3. Most mesotheliomas and all reactive fluids failed to stain with these antibodies. The sensitivity of the five markers to detect carcinoma cells differed remarkably. Especially MOC-31, Ber-EP4, and B72.3 stained with a high number of carcinoma cases and the complemetary value of Ber-EP4 and B72.3 to immunostain carcinoma cells was impressive: 94% of the metastatic adenocarcinoma cases reacted with Ber-EP4 or B72.3 in contrast to 1 of 41 malignant mesotheliomas.

Calretinin: a novel immunocytochemical marker for mesothelioma

Immunohistochemistry is a powerful diagnostic adjunct in the differential diagnosis between malignant mesothelioma (especially of the epithelial type) and adenocarcinoma metastatic to the serous membranes. Most of the immunological probes commonly used, however, recognize antigens expressed by the epithelial malignancies and absent from mesothelial cells and mesotheliomas. Probes suitable for the positive identification of mesotheliomas are comparatively scarce and much less commonly used because of their reduced sensitivity and specificity, their unsuitability for staining routinely fixed and embedded tissues, or their lack of commercial availability. We now document that two different polyclonal antisera to calretinin consistently immunostain mesothelial cells and malignant mesotheliomas both in routinely fixed and embedded tissue sections and in cytological preparations of serous effusions. The diagnostic sensitivity of this novel immunocytochemical approach reached 100%, allowing immunostaining of all 44 mesotheliomas investigated, which included five biphasic and three sarcomatoid types. The specificity of calretinin immunoreactivity was checked against 294 adenocarcinomas of different origin (19 serosal metastases and 275 primary tumors potentially able to metastatize to serosal membranes) relevant for the discussion of the differential diagnosis with malignant mesothelioma: only 28 cases showed focal immunoreactivity for calretinin. We conclude that calretinin is a most useful marker for the positive identification of malignant mesotheliomas.