[Pleural mesothelioma. Cytology and molecular diagnostics]

The definitive diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) in effusion cytology is often avoided or reluctantly made by cytology alone. The most probable reason for this skepticism is the lack of expertise in cytology among many pathologists and clinicians. When an effusion specimen is composed of cells with unequivocal cytological features of malignancy that have the morphology and immunophenotype of mesothelial cells, the cytological diagnosis of MM is straightforward. However, in the daily routine difficult cases of atypical mesothelial cells are often encountered and additional methods are required to establish an accurate diagnosis. In contrast to reactive mesothelial cells cells of MMs often harbor chromosomal aberrations, most frequently a polysomy in combination with a 9p21 deletion. These chromosomal aberrations can easily be detected by multitarget fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); therefore, FISH allows a reliable distinction between reactive mesothelial cells and MM cells. In order to be able to discriminate between MM and adenocarcinoma, an immunocytochemical panel consisting of different mesothelial and epithelial markers is very helpful. In most inconclusive cases of atypical mesothelial cells the combination of morphology, immunocytochemistry and FISH allows a better distinction between reactive mesothelial cells and MM in effusion cytology.

ERG rearrangement and protein expression in the progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of the prostate carcinomas are characterized by a chromosomal rearrangement fusing the androgen-regulated gene TMPRSS2 to the oncogenic ETS transcription factor ERG. Aim of this study was to comprehensively analyze the role and impact of the ERG rearrangement and protein expression on the progression to castration-resistant (CR) disease.

METHODS

We used a tissue microarray (TMA) constructed from 114 hormone naive (HN) and 117 CR PCs. We analyzed the ERG rearrangement status by fluorescence in situ hybridization and the expression profiles of ERG, androgen receptor (AR) and the proliferation marker Ki67 by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Nearly half of the PC tissue specimens (HN: 38%, CR: 46%) harbored a TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion. HN PCs with positive translocation status showed increased tumor cell proliferation (P<0.05). As expected, TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion was strongly associated with increased ERG protein expression in HN and CR PCs (both P<0.0001). Remarkably, the study revealed a subgroup (26%) of CR PCs with ERG rearrangement but without any detectable ERG protein expression. This subgroup showed significantly lower levels of AR protein expression and androgen-regulated serum PSA (both P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we identified a subgroup of ERG-rearranged CR PCs without detectable ERG protein expression. Our results suggest that this subgroup could represent CR PCs with a dispensed AR pathway. These tumors might represent a thus far unrecognized subset of patients with AR-independent CR PC who may not benefit from conventional therapy directed against the AR pathway.