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

Case report: Abdominal mesothelioma in Atelerix albiventris

Hedgehogs, as exotic species, are more susceptible to various neoplastic conditions affecting diverse bodily systems, particularly the tegumentary, hemolymphatic, and digestive systems. Among these conditions, epithelial tumors are the most prevalent, followed by round cell tumors and mesenchymal tumors. A striking characteristic is the malignant nature of over 8% of these tumors, leading to a generally unfavorable prognosis. This study aims to present a unique case involving a 2.5 year-old male African pygmy hedgehog in Concepción, Biobío District, Chile, diagnosed with a mesenchymal neoplasia originating from mesothelial cells. The hedgehog presented to the veterinary clinic with acute abdominal pain, prompting ultrasound imaging, and comprehensive cytological, histopathological, and immunohistochemical analyses. During abdominal ultrasound, a mass was observed, and its cytological examination revealed the presence of malignant cells. The histopathological examination unveiled a diffuse mesothelial cell tissue interwoven with abundant fibrous tissue and small cysts containing serous fluid, all enveloped by flattened or cuboidal cells of mesothelial origin. Immunohistochemistry further confirmed the diagnosis, demonstrating positive immunostaining for calretinin and mesothelin markers, corroborating the diagnosis of fibrous malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. This case highlights the complexity of neoplastic conditions in hedgehogs and emphasizes the importance of multimodal diagnostic approaches for accurate identification and understanding of these rare diseases.

Mesothelioma in the pleura, pericardium and peritoneum: Recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)

AIMS

Mesothelioma is a rare malignancy of the serosal membranes that is commonly related to exposure to asbestos. Despite extensive research and clinical trials, prognosis to date remains poor. Consistent, comprehensive and reproducible pathology reporting form the basis of all future interventions for an individual patient, but also ensures that meaningful data are collected to identify predictive and prognostic markers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This article details the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) process and the development of the international consensus mesothelioma reporting data set. It describes the 'core' and 'non-core' elements to be included in pathology reports for mesothelioma of all sites, inclusive of clinical, macroscopic, microscopic and ancillary testing considerations. An international expert panel consisting of pathologists and a medical oncologist produced a set of data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence, and in light of the changes in the 2021 WHO Classification of Tumours. The commentary focuses particularly upon new entities such as mesothelioma in situ and provides background on relevant and essential ancillary testing as well as implementation of the new requirement for tumour grading.

CONCLUSION

We recommend widespread and consistent implementation of this data set, which will facilitate accurate reporting and enhance the consistency of data collection, improve the comparison of epidemiological data, support retrospective research and ultimately help to improve clinical outcomes. To this end, all data sets are freely available worldwide on the ICCR website (www.iccr-cancer.org/data-sets).

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.

State-of-the-art cytology of pleural fluid, focusing on the diagnosis of mesothelioma

Mesothelioma has always been a challenging diagnosis to render in body cavity cytology samples. This review is a timely update on pleural fluid cytology and ancillary studies that should be considered in the diagnosis of mesothelial proliferations, specifically mesotheliomas. Information about new diagnostic approaches and ancillary studies in mesothelioma was obtained from the peer-reviewed literature and the authors' experiences. Although the morphological diagnosis of mesothelioma is fraught with numerous challenges given the overlap with other diagnostic entities, there are a variety of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization studies available to help in determining mesothelial origin and in distinguishing malignant proliferations from the more common benign or reactive mesothelial proliferations. Although ancillary studies can be helpful, there are important pitfalls to be aware of when interpreting these cases, and this review highlights some of the challenges that require caution.

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.

Comprehensive Molecular and Pathologic Evaluation of Transitional Mesothelioma Assisted by Deep Learning Approach: A Multi-Institutional Study of the International Mesothelioma Panel from the MESOPATH Reference Center

INTRODUCTION

Histologic subtypes of malignant pleural mesothelioma are a major prognostic indicator and decision denominator for all therapeutic strategies. In an ambiguous case, a rare transitional mesothelioma (TM) pattern may be diagnosed by pathologists either as epithelioid mesothelioma (EM), biphasic mesothelioma (BM), or sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM). This study aimed to better characterize the TM subtype from a histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular standpoint. Deep learning of pathologic slides was applied to this cohort.

METHODS

A random selection of 49 representative digitalized sections from surgical biopsies of TM was reviewed by 16 panelists. We evaluated BAP1 expression and CDKN2A (p16) homozygous deletion. We conducted a comprehensive, integrated, transcriptomic analysis. An unsupervised deep learning algorithm was trained to classify tumors.

RESULTS

The 16 panelists recorded 784 diagnoses on the 49 cases. Even though a Kappa value of 0.42 is moderate, the presence of a TM component was diagnosed in 51%. In 49% of the histological evaluation, the reviewers classified the lesion as EM in 53%, SM in 33%, or BM in 14%. Median survival was 6.7 months. Loss of BAP1 observed in 44% was less frequent in TM than in EM and BM. p16 homozygous deletion was higher in TM (73%), followed by BM (63%) and SM (46%). RNA sequencing unsupervised clustering analysis revealed that TM grouped together and were closer to SM than to EM. Deep learning analysis achieved 94% accuracy for TM identification.

CONCLUSION

These results revealed that the TM pattern should be classified as non-EM or at minimum as a subgroup of the SM type.

Application of immunohistochemistry in diagnosis and management of malignant mesothelioma

Immunohistochemistry plays an indispensable role in accurate diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, particularly in morphologically challenging cases and in biopsy and cytology specimens, where tumor architecture is difficult or impossible to evaluate. Application of a targeted panel of mesothelial- and epithelial-specific markers permits correct identification of tumor lineage in the vast majority of cases. An immunopanel including two mesothelial markers (calretinin, CK5/6, WT-1, or D2-40) and two epithelial markers (MOC-31 and claudin-4) offers good sensitivity and specificity, with adjustments as appropriate for the differential diagnosis. Once mesothelial lineage is established, malignancy-specific studies can help verify a diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. BAP1 loss, CDKN2A homozygous deletion, and MTAP loss are highly specific markers of malignancy in a mesothelial lesion, and they attain acceptable diagnostic sensitivity when applied as a diagnostic panel. Novel markers of malignancy, such as 5-hmC loss and increased EZH2 expression, are promising, but have not yet achieved widespread clinical adoption. Some diagnostic markers also have prognostic significance, and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry may predict tumor response to immunotherapy. Application and interpretation of these immnuomarkers should always be guided by clinical history, radiographic findings, and above all histomorphology.