Molecular markers and new diagnostic methods to differentiate malignant from benign mesothelial pleural proliferations: a literature review

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.

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.

Development of mesothelioma-specific oncolytic immunotherapy enabled by immunopeptidomics of murine and human mesothelioma tumors

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis. As the available therapeutic options show a lack of efficacy, novel therapeutic strategies are urgently needed. Given its T-cell infiltration, we hypothesized that MPM is a suitable target for therapeutic cancer vaccination. To date, research on mesothelioma has focused on the identification of molecular signatures to better classify and characterize the disease, and little is known about therapeutic targets that engage cytotoxic (CD8+) T cells. In this study we investigate the immunopeptidomic antigen-presented landscape of MPM in both murine (AB12 cell line) and human cell lines (H28, MSTO-211H, H2452, and JL1), as well as in patients' primary tumors. Applying state-of-the-art immuno-affinity purification methodologies, we identify MHC I-restricted peptides presented on the surface of malignant cells. We characterize in vitro the immunogenicity profile of the eluted peptides using T cells from human healthy donors and cancer patients. Furthermore, we use the most promising peptides to formulate an oncolytic virus-based precision immunotherapy (PeptiCRAd) and test its efficacy in a mouse model of mesothelioma in female mice. Overall, we demonstrate that the use of immunopeptidomic analysis in combination with oncolytic immunotherapy represents a feasible and effective strategy to tackle untreatable tumors.

Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Bioinformatic Analysis of Biomarkers for Prognosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

In previous studies, non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers showed great benefit in the early-stage diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). However, the accuracy of different biomarkers was controversial. In this study, meta-analysis and bioinformatics analysis were conducted to compare the accuracy of the following three biomarkers and explore the relationship between the gene expression levels and MPM. A systematic search of meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies from the inception to March 2021. QUADAS-2 for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. The meta-analysis was performed utilizing Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.4 software. The meta-analysis results showed that 31 studies that involved 8750 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity (SPE) were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.97) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.95) for Fibulin-3, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.51–0.78) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82–0.96) for mesothelin (MSLN), 0.68 (95% CI: 0.63,0.73) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82,0.90) for soluble mesothelin-related peptides (SMRP), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85–0.91) for MSLN + SMRP + Fibulin-3. Compared with the other two biomarkers, Fibulin-3 may be more appropriate to be one of the indicators for combined diagnosis. Bioinformatics analysis showed that the low expression level of the MSLN gene was significantly related to longer survival time and better prognosis of MPM patients. However, considering the limitation in the quality and sample size of the included research, further studies are required.

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.

Metastasis of Sarcomatoid Malignant Mesothelioma With p16/CDKN2A Deletion Manifested as a Subcutaneous Mass in the Back: A Case Report and Review of Literature

Sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare and aggressive disease, and its diagnosis is challenging. A 60-year-old man presented with a recurrent subcutaneous mass in his right back after the initial resection. A chest computed tomography (CT) scan found right pleural thickening, nodular pleural thickening, pleural effusion, mediastinal, and right infraclavicular lymph nodes enlargement, which indicated a right pleura MM. Immunohistochemical stains of the resected mass showed sarcomatous atypical spindle cells, which were positive for pan-CKs (clone Anti-cytokeratin cocktail AE1/AE3), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), Wilm's tumor 1, podoplanin, vimentin and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and negative for Napsin A, thyroid transcription factor 1, CDX 2, calretinin and desmin, and fluorescent in situ hybridization detected homozygous p16/cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (p16/CDKN2A) deletion. The association of the chest CT features and the pathological assessment confirmed metastatic MM in the subcutaneous layer of the back. Moreover, positron emission tomography-CT showed multiple metastases in his brain. He developed massive right pleural effusion and chest tightness soon, and the mass kept growing despite local and systemic treatments. The patient die of pulmonary failure in 3 months.

MicroRNAs diagnostic and prognostic value as predictive markers for malignant mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive tumor resistant to current therapies with a latency period ranging between 20 and 60 years, caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers, that continues to represent a social and healthcare issue. The high percentage of people exposed to asbestos for professional or environmental reasons is associated with the high biopersistence of its fibers and with its widespread use in the last century. Approximately 20-40% of men report an occupational history that might have caused the workplace exposure (criteria Helsinki, 1997). Some authors are evaluating the possible use of bioindicators as a screening and early diagnosis tool. In this regard, the use of microRNAs has been proposed as powerful diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for many tumors and human diseases. This review focuses on the current state of knowledge on the key role of microRNAs expression as new malignant mesothelioma biomarkers, in early clinical diagnostic applications.

Guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma: Complementary statement from the international mesothelioma interest group, also endorsed by the international academy of cytology and the papanicolaou society of cytopathology. A proposal to be applauded and promoted but which requires updating

The guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma produced by the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and which are endorsed by the International Academy of Cytology and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology are reviewed and discussed. This (predominantly) evidence-based document provides a robust and useful framework for diagnosticians and guideline producers to emphasise and promote the value, power and role of cytology in mesothelioma diagnosis and management with comments and suggestions about how the guidelines can be updated and improved in the future.

A gene-expression-based test can outperform bap1 and p16 analyses in the differential diagnosis of pleural mesothelial proliferations

The demonstration of tissue invasion by histology is an essential criterion for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations. When tissue invasion cannot be identified, the use of ancillary tests is sometimes necessary. Among investigated markers, the loss of BRCA1 associated protein 1 (BAP1) protein expression and the homozygous deletion of p16 have shown 100% specificity in separating benign and malignant mesothelial lesions. However, beyond the excellent specificity of these two markers, their low sensitivity limits their clinical utility. In this context, a previous study developed and tested a novel tool for use in the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) using the NanoString System and a classification algorithm. In the current study, the performance of gene classifiers were compared using BAP1 and p16 testing. p16 FISH and BAP1 immunohistochemistry were performed on the same series of 34 epithelioid MPM and 20 benign pleural lesions, which were previously analyzed by the system. The diagnostic performance of p16, BAP1 and our classification models were compared using ROC analysis. It was observed that BAP1 loss and p16 deletion were highly specific for MPM, since they were not detected in benign lesions. However, their AUC values were not completely satisfying (BAP1: 0.8235; p16: 0.7647) particularly due to their low sensitivities. As expected, combining BAP1 and p16 tests increased the diagnostic sensitivity, thus improving the AUC (0.8824). In the same series of cases, our MPM tool outperformed BAP1 and p16 tests using the 22 and 40-gene classification models (AUC 22-gene model: 0.9996; AUC 40-gene model: 0.9990). In conclusion, the present gene-expression-based classification exhibited great potential and further validation is required to support these findings in a prospective fashion, in order to provide a solid alternative for pleural proliferation diagnosis.

Biomarkers for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a meta-analysis

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare but aggressive cancer, and early detection is associated with better survival. Mesothelin, fibulin-3 and osteopontin have been suggested as screening biomarkers. The study conducted a meta-analysis of the mean differences of mesothelin, osteopontin and fibulin-3 in blood and pleural samples. PubMed searches were conducted for studies that measured levels of mesothelin, osteopontin and fibulin-3 in participants with MPM compared with malignancy, benign lung disease or healthy participants. Thirty-two studies with mesothelin levels, 12 studies with osteopontin levels and 9 studies with fibulin-3 levels were included in the meta-analysis. Statistically significant mean differences were seen between MPM patients and all other comparison groups for mesothelin blood and pleural levels. Statistically significant differences in blood osteopontin levels were seen between participants with benign lung disease and healthy participants compared with participants with MPM, but not when comparing participants with cancer with MPM participants. There were not enough studies that reported osteopontin levels in pleural fluid to complete a meta-analysis. Statistically significant differences were seen in both blood and pleural levels of fibulin-3 in MPM patients compared with all other groups. On the basis of these results, mesothelin and fibulin-3 levels appear to be significantly lower in all control groups compared with those with MPM, making them good candidates for screening biomarkers. Osteopontin may be a useful biomarker for screening healthy individuals or those with benign lung disease but would not be useful for screening patients with malignancies.

Biomarkers for detecting malignant pleural mesothelioma: Protocol for a reanalysis of published data based on systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly invasive tumor caused primarily by asbestos exposure. In recent decades, the incidence of MPM has shown an increasing trend, posing a great threat to human health. Although there is currently no effective way to treat MPM, patients can survive for more than 5 years if the tumor is removed early. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic value of biomarkers for diagnosing MPM. However, no studies have been conducted to analyze the quality of these SRs and it remains unclear which biomarker is the excellent diagnostic test. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and reanalyze the published data based on SRs to find the optimal biomarker for the early diagnosis of MPM.

METHODS

A systematic search will be performed in PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science to identify SRs reporting value of biomarkers for detecting MPM. We will evaluate the risk of bias of the included SRs according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) instrument. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison will be used to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers.

RESULTS

The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

This study will reanalyze the published data based on SRs to find a biomarker with the superior diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of MPM.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is an overview based on published systematic reviews.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019125880.

Droplet digital PCR as a novel system for the detection of microRNA‑34b/c methylation in circulating DNA in malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy arising from the pleura that is difficult to diagnose, contributing to its dismal prognosis. Previously, we reported that the degree of microRNA (miR)‑34b/c methylation in circulating DNA is associated with the development of MPM. Herein, we present a newly developed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)‑based assay for the detection of miR‑34b/c methylation in circulating DNA in patients with MPM. We originally prepared two probes within a short amplicon of 60 bp, designing one from the positive strand and the other from the complementary strand. The two probes functioned cooperatively, and our established assay detected DNA methylation accurately in the preliminary validation. We subsequently verified this assay using clinical samples. Serum samples from 35 cases of MPM, 29 cases of pleural plaque and 10 healthy volunteers were collected from 3 different institutions and used in this study. We divided the samples into 2 groups (group A, n=33; group B, n=41). A receiver‑operating characteristic curve analysis using the samples in group A determined the optimal cut‑off value for the diagnosis of MPM, with a sensitivity of 76.9% and a specificity of 90%. On the other hand, the use of the same criterion yielded a sensitivity of 59.1% and a specificity of 100% in group B, and corresponding values of 65.7 and 94.9% for the entire cohort, indicating a moderate sensitivity and a high specificity. In addition, when the analysis was focused on stage II or more advanced MPM, the sensitivity improved to 81.8%, suggesting the possibility that the methylated allele frequency in MPM may be associated with the stage of disease progression. On the whole, the findings of this study indicate that miR‑34b/c methylation in circulating DNA is a promising biomarker for the prediction of disease progression in patients with MPM.

Immunohistochemical evaluation of nuclear 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) accurately distinguishes malignant pleural mesothelioma from benign mesothelial proliferations

Accurate distinction of benign mesothelial proliferations from malignant mesothelioma remains a diagnostic challenge. Sequential use of BAP1 immunohistochemistry and CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization is specific for diagnosis of mesothelioma, but fluorescence in situ hybridization is both costly and time-consuming. Early data indicate that mesothelioma shows extensive loss of nuclear 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC). We studied 49 cases of mesothelioma (17 epithelioid mesothelioma, 22 biphasic mesothelioma, and 10 sarcomatoid mesothelioma) and 23 benign mesothelial proliferations using a 5-hmC single immunohistochemical stain, CAM5.2/5-hmC double immunohistochemical stain, and BAP1 immunohistochemistry. Estimations of extent of 5-hmC loss were made using the 5-hmC single stain and CAM5.2/5-hmC double stain, and extent of nuclear 5-hmC loss was definitively quantitated in at least 1000 cells per case. Mean nuclear 5-hmC loss in mesothelioma (84%) was significantly greater than in benign mesothelial proliferations (4%) (p < 0.0001). Using 5-hmC loss in > 50% of tumor nuclei to define the diagnosis of mesothelioma, 5-hmC immunohistochemistry showed sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 100%. An immunopanel including 5-hmC and BAP1 immunohistochemistry achieved sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 100%. Extensive nuclear 5-hmC loss is sensitive and specific for mesothelioma in the differential diagnosis with benign mesothelial proliferations. In challenging mesothelial lesions, immunohistochemical studies showing either extensive 5-hmC loss or BAP1 loss indicate a diagnosis of mesothelioma, precluding the need for CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization in a considerable number of cases.

MicroRNAs for the Diagnosis and Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Literature Review

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive tumor with a variable incidence among different countries. Occupational asbestos exposure is the most important etiological factor and a very long latency period is widely reported. In the early phase of the disease, clinical signs are absent or not specific. For this reason, the diagnosis is frequently achieved only in the advanced stages. The histopathological diagnosis per se is also very complex, and no known factor can predict the prognosis with certainty. Nonetheless, current survival rates remain very low, despite the use of standard treatments, which include surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The identification of new prognostic and/or diagnostic biomarkers, and the discovery of therapeutic targets is a priority and could lead to a real significant impact on the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. In this scenario, the role of microRNAs is becoming increasingly relevant, with the promise of a quick translation in the current clinical practice. Despite the relative novelty of this field, the number of works and candidate microRNAs that are present in literature is striking. Unfortunately, to date the microRNAs with the most clinical relevance for MPM are still matter of debate, probably due to the variety of approaches, techniques, and collected samples. Although specific microRNAs (e.g., let-7, miR-15 and miR-16, miR-21, miR-34a, and the miR-200 family) have been reported several times from different groups, the heterogeneity of published data reinforces the need of more comprehensive and unified studies on this topic. In this review we collect and discuss the studies focused on the involvement of microRNAs in different aspects of MPM, from their biological role in tumorigenesis and progression, to their possible application as diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Lastly, we examine their potential value as for the design of therapeutic approaches that could benefit MPM patients.

How to assess the best immunohistochemical panel in the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma in a pathology lab

BACKGROUND

malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare tumor with a challenging diagnosis. Even if, clinical data are mandatory to suspect the diagnosis, the positive diagnosis is based on microscopic features. Morphologic features are still the port of call of the diagnosis but their non specific character and the multiplicity of differential diagnoses made the immunohistochemical markers mandatory for the diagnosis. Many antibodies with a positive diagnostic value including claretinin, mesothelin, WT1 and antibodies with a negative diagnostic value including TTF1, EMA, CD15 are recommended by the scientific societies. This is due to the diagnostic limits of every antibody which necessitate the association of multiple antibodies. In the diagnostic demarch, pathologists deal with different antibodies and clones. Even if many recommendations are available, every pathology lab has to experiment its own antibodies in order to optimize the routine diagnostic demarch especially in low-income country. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic value of different antibodies available in our lab and to recommend a decisional flowchart.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

we conducted a retrospective study about 30 MPM diagnosed over a 20-year-period. The different techniques were realized manually. The different antibodies used were anti-calretinin, anti-Epithelial Membrane Antigen (EMA), anti-mesothelin, anti-Thyroid Transcription Factor 1 (TTF1), anti-ACE, anti-cytokeratin, anti-vimentin, anti-CD15, anti-cytokeratin 5/6, anti-bcl2, and anti-CD99 and anti-CD34 antibodies. The sensitivity and specificity of these antibodies were assessed.

RESULTS

the microscopic exam concluded to an epithelioid mesothelioma (EM) in 17 cases, sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM) in four cases and biphasic mesothelioma (BM) in nine cases. The immunohistochemical study was performed in all cases. A mean of eight antibodies was used in every case, average 4 to 20 antibodies. The immunohistochemical study was repeated from 2 to 5 times in 15 cases and concerned a mean of 3 antibodies per case. In EM and BM, the antibodies with positive predictive value and highest sensitivity were calretinin, EMA, cytokeratin, and vimentin reaching respectively a sensitivity of 86.2%, 89.7%, 92.9% and 89.3%. The most valuable antibodies with negative predictive value were TTF1, CD15 and ACE that presented a specificity reaching respectively 100%. In sarcomatoid mesothelima, the most sensitive antibody was the cytokeratin antibody.

CONCLUSION

these results yielded to a diagnostic flowchart that we can use in routine practice and that is in accordance with the literature findings. Many diagnostic and technical pitfalls have to be known by pathologists when dealing with MPM.