Search

This review article examines some new and some problem areas in mesothelial pathology, four of which are discussed, as follows. (1) The concept of mesothelioma in situ: this lesion is defined as a single layer of bland mesothelial cells without evidence of invasion, but that have lost BAP1 and/or MTAP by immunohistochemistry. Benign reactions can exactly mimic mesothelioma in situ, but a hint to the correct diagnosis is a story of recurrent pleural effusions/ascites of unknown aetiology without radiological or direct visual evidence of tumour. (2) The nature of well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour (WDPMT): WDPMT has a long history of arguments regarding its behaviour, and this uncertainty can now be seen to arise, in part, from the observation that some forms of mesothelioma in situ microscopically look exactly like WDPMT. Hence, it is recommended to always run at least a BAP1 stain on any lesion that looks like WDPMT. Both flat and WDPMT-like mesothelioma in situ are strongly associated with eventual development of invasive mesothelioma, but this process is relatively slow. (3) New immunostains for separating mesothelioma from other tumours: here, it is proposed that in most cases, and particularly when the differential is epithelioid mesothelioma versus non-small cell lung cancer, one can make this separation with extremely high sensitivity and specificity using just two stains: HEG1 and claudin-4. (4) Markers for separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations: this topic is briefly reviewed, with an indication of which markers are generally accepted and the best utilisation and possible limitations of each marker., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1), glucose transporter (GLUT)-1 and desmin expression by immunohistochemistry in the discrimination between reactive and malignant mesothelial proliferations., Methods: A total of 88 biopsies and 30 effusions from mesothelioma cases were studied. Control groups were composed of 35 tissues and 30 cell blocks. The 88 mesothelioma cases were from 43 males and 45 females (mean age 56 years). Tumours were mostly localised to pleura (66/88, 75%) and of epithelioid histology (75/88, 85%). Cytology samples were from 17 males and 13 females (mean age 58 years), and 16 pleural and 14 peritoneal effusions. Twenty cytology cases had corresponding tissue biopsies., Results: BAP1 loss was detected in 61/88 (69%) tissues and in 20/30 (67%) cytology samples from mesothelioma with a specificity of 100% for both sampling methods. BAP1 loss was observed more frequently in pleural and biphasic tumours. GLUT-1 immunoreactivity was identified in 54/81 (67%) and 23/25 (92%) malignant tissues and effusions, and in 6/33 (18%) and 6/30 (20%) benign tissues and effusions, respectively. Desmin loss was observed in 74/80 (92%) malignant biopsy samples, 16/21 (76%) malignant effusions and 10/34 (29%) of benign tissues, but in none of the reactive effusions. Concordance rate of results between biopsy and cytology was as follows: BAP1 20/20 (100%); GLUT-1 13/18 (72%); and desmin 10/14 (71%)., Conclusions: BAP1, GLUT-1 and desmin are useful markers in the discrimination between reactive and malignant mesothelial proliferations. BAP1 loss seems to be diagnostic for mesotheliomas both in biopsy and cytology samples., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the individual and combined diagnostic utility of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin 19 fragments (CK19) and HBME-1 in pleural effusions of patients with lung cancer., Study Design: CEA, CK19 and HBME-1 were detected by immunocytochemistry in pleural effusions from patients with lung cancer (86 cases) and without lung cancer (40 cases)., Results: CEA and CK19 expression were significantly higher in the carcinoma cell group and in three subgrouped as adenocarcinoma (AC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and small cell lung cancer than in the mesothelial cell group, whereas HBME-1 expression was lower in the former group (P < 0.01). In the subgrouped tumours, CEA expression was higher in AC than in SCC (P < 0.05), whereas HBME-1 expression was higher in SCC than in AC (P < 0.01). Used alone, CK19 had the highest sensitivity (95.3%) and accuracy (93.7%), whereas CEA had the highest specificity (97.5%). When combinations of antibodies were evaluated together and membrane staining with HBME-1 taken as a negative outcome, CK19 and HBME-1 gave a high diagnostic performance: sensitivity of 100.0% and accuracy of 95.2% respectively., Conclusion: A panel of CEA, CK19 and HBME-1 monoclonal antibodies proved to be suitable for distinguishing carcinoma cells from reactive mesothelial cells in pleural effusions.