When the Diagnosis of Mesothelioma Challenges Textbooks and Guidelines

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.

BAP1 Loss, Nuclear Grading, and Nonepithelioid Features in the Diagnosis of Mesothelioma in Italy: Nevermore without the Pathology Report

The pathologic diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma is generally based on international guidelines, but no compulsory points based on different drugs approvals in different European countries are required to be reported. According to the last (2021) edition of the World Health Organization classification of pleural tumors, the nuclear grade of epithelioid-type mesothelioma should be always inserted in the pathologic report, while the presence of BRCA-associated protein-1 (BAP1) (clone C4) loss and a statement on the presence of the sarcomatoid/nonepithelioid component are fundamental for both a screening of patients with suspected BAP1 tumor predisposition syndrome and the eligibility to perform first-line immunotherapy at least in some countries. Several Italian experts on pleural mesothelioma who are deeply involved in national scientific societies or dedicated working groups supported by patient associations agreed that the pathology report of mesothelioma of the pleura should always include the nuclear grade in the epithelioid histology, which is an overt statement on the presence of sarcomatoid components (at least 1%, in agreement with the last classification of pleural mesothelioma) and the presence of BAP1 loss (BAP1-deficient mesothelioma) or not (BAP1-retained mesothelioma) in order to screen patients possibly harboring BAP1 tumor predisposition syndrome. This review aims to summarize the most recent data on these three important elements to provide evidence regarding the possible precision needs for mesothelioma.

An Updated Contextual Approach to Mesothelial Proliferations in Pleural Effusion Cytology Leveraging Morphology, Ancillary Studies, and Novel Biomarkers

CONTEXT.—

Pleural effusions are common cytologic specimens that can be leveraged to make diagnoses of malignancy that drive appropriate patient management. However, the overlap in morphologic features of reactive mesothelial proliferations, mesotheliomas, and adenocarcinomas can create diagnostic pitfalls in the cytologic evaluation of pleural fluids.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review the morphologic spectrum of benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations in pleural effusions, as well as relevant clinicoradiologic contexts and ancillary tests.

DATA SOURCES.—

Existing scientific and clinical literature as of January 2023.

CONCLUSIONS.—

We can leverage the knowledge of several overlapping morphologic features, clinicoradiologic scenarios, and immunohistochemical studies to enhance the diagnostic accuracy of pleural effusion cytology to appropriately delineate cases of adenocarcinoma, reactive mesothelial proliferation, and mesothelioma. Earlier diagnosis through cytology, particularly in cases of mesothelioma, may positively impact patient treatment options and prognosis.

The genetic susceptibility in the development of malignant pleural mesothelioma: somatic and germline variants, clinicopathological features and implication in practical medical/surgical care: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a very aggressive primary tumor of the pleura whose main risk factor is exposure to asbestos. However, only a minority of exposed people develops MPM and the incidence of MPM cases without an apparent association with asbestos exposure has been increasing in recent years, suggesting that genetic predisposing factors may play a crucial role. In addition, several studies reported familial cases of MPM, suggesting that heredity may be an important and underestimated feature in MPM development. Several candidate genes have been associated with a predisposition to MPM and most of them play a role in DNA repair mechanisms: overall, approximately 20% of MPM cases may be related to genetic predisposition. A particular category of patients with high susceptibility to MPM is represented by carriers of pathogenic variants in the BAP1 gene. Germline variants in BAP1 predispose to the development of MPM following an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance in the familial cases. MPMs in these patients are significantly less aggressive, and patients require a multidisciplinary approach that involves genetic counseling, medical genetics, pathology, surgical, medical, and radiation oncology expertise. In the present narrative review, we presented a comprehensive overview of genetic susceptibility in the development of MPM.

Methods

The narrative review is based on a selective literature carried out in PubMed in 2023. Inclusion criteria were original articles in English language, and clinical trials (randomized, prospective, or retrospective).

Key Content and Findings

We summarized the somatic and germline variants and the differences in terms of clinicopathological features and prognosis between gene-related MPM (GR-MPM) and asbestos-related MPM (AR-MPM). We also discussed the indications for screening, genetic testing, and surveillance of patients with BAP1 germline variants.

Conclusions

In this narrative review, we have emphasized that the BAP1 gene's harmful germline variations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner in familial cases. MPMs in individuals with these variations are less severe, and their medical care necessitates a collaborative effort. Additionally, we have outlined the current therapeutic prospects for MPM, including the possibility of gene-specific therapy, which is currently promising but still requires clinical validation.

Co-existing pericardial and pleural malignant mesothelioma responding well to nedaplatin and pemetrexed: a case report

Background

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare cancer with poor prognosis. It is less common that two serosal cavities are involved when the patient seeks medical attention firstly. The current first-line chemotherapy for advanced MM is a combination with cisplatin and pemetrexed. However, nedaplatin, a second-generation platinum-based antitumor agent, has the similar therapeutic effects as cisplatin but lower toxicity and higher water solubility. To our knowledge, this is the first case of co-existing pericardial and pleural MM treated with nedaplatin and pemetrexed and responding well.

Case Description

A 33-year-old woman, who had worked in a kiln for more than 10 years, suffered from dyspnea and chest tightness for 6 days. Chest computed tomography (CT) showed a massive pericardial effusion. She was diagnosed tuberculous pericarditis and received 6 months antituberculosis treatment (rifampicin, isoniazide, pyrazinamide, ethambutol). But it was ineffective and she was re hospitalized again due to massive pleural effusion and pericardial effusion. She was diagnosed with co-existing pericardial and pleural MM finally based on pleural biopsy and cytology of pericardial effusion. She was responding well excitedly to chemotherapy with nedaplatin and pemetrexed with high tolerance. Bone marrow toxicity or recurrent massive pericardial or pleural effusion were not observed during chemotherapy. However, she gave up chemotherapy and has survived for 22 months, from the onset symptoms.

Conclusions

In terms of clinical tolerance and less adverse reactions, we suggest that chemotherapy of nedaplatin with pemetrexed may be a more appropriate treatment in advanced MM. Further clinical trials are warrant.

Highlighting the immunohistochemical differences of malignant mesothelioma subtypes via case presentations

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare tumor of mesothelial cells, with an increasing incidence both in developed and developing countries. MM has three major histological subtypes, in order of frequency, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of 2021: epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid MM. Distinction may be a challenging task for the pathologist, due to the unspecific morphology. Here, we present two cases of diffuse MM subtypes to emphasize the immunohistochemical (IHC) differences, and to facilitate diagnostic difficulties. In our first case of epithelioid mesothelioma, the neoplastic cells showed cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), calretinin, and Wilms-tumor-1 (WT1) expression, while remaining negative with thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1). BRCA1 associated protein-1 (BAP1) negativity was seen in the neoplastic cells' nucleus, reflecting loss of the tumor suppressor gene. In the second case of biphasic mesothelioma, expression of epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), CKAE1/AE3, and mesothelin was observed, while WT1, BerEP4, CD141, TTF1, p63, CD31, calretinin, and BAP1 expressions were not detected. Due to the absence of specific histological features, the differentiation between MM subtypes could be a challenging task. In routine diagnostic work, IHC may be the proper method in distinction. According to our results and literature data, CK5/6, mesothelin, calretinin, and Ki-67 should be applied in subclassification.

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.

Sneaky Diagnosis of Pleural Malignant Mesothelioma in Thoracic Surgery: All That Glitters Is Not Gold

Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive disease whose diagnosis could be challenging and confusing. It could occur with atypical presentations on every examined level. Here, we present three unconventional cases of the complex diagnostic process of MPM that we have experienced during routine practice: a patient with reactive mesothelial hyperplasia mimicking MPM, an unexpected presentation of MPM with persistent unilateral hydropneumothorax, a rare case of MPM in situ. Then, we review the relevant literature on each of these topics. Definitive biomarkers to confidently distinguish MPM from other pleural affections are still demanded. Patients presenting with persistent hydropneumothorax must always be investigated for MPM. MPM in situ is now a reality, and this raises questions about its management.

Headspace Volatile Organic Compound Profiling of Pleural Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer Cell Lines as Translational Bridge for Breath Research

Introduction

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a lethal cancer for which early-stage diagnosis remains a major challenge. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath proved to be potential biomarkers for MPM diagnosis, but translational studies are needed to elucidate which VOCs originate from the tumor itself and thus are specifically related to MPM cell metabolism.

Methods

An in vitro model was set-up to characterize the headspace VOC profiles of six MPM and two lung cancer cell lines using thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. A comparative analysis was carried out to identify VOCs that could discriminate between MPM and lung cancer, as well as between the histological subtypes within MPM (epithelioid, sarcomatoid and biphasic).

Results

VOC profiles were identified capable of distinguishing MPM (subtypes) and lung cancer cells with high accuracy. Alkanes, aldehydes, ketones and alcohols represented many of the discriminating VOCs. Discrepancies with clinical findings were observed, supporting the need for studies examining breath and tumor cells of the same patients and studying metabolization and kinetics of in vitro discovered VOCs in a clinical setting.

Conclusion

While the relationship between in vitro and in vivo VOCs is yet to be established, both could complement each other in generating a clinically useful breath model for MPM.

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

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