Search

The distinction of malignant mesothelioma from non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) usually requires immunohistochemistry, but some broad-spectrum carcinoma markers stain mesotheliomas, and it remains unclear which broad-spectrum markers are most valuable for distinguishing these malignancies. Here, we directly compared the sensitivity and specificity of three broad-spectrum carcinoma markers, claudin-4, Ber-EP4, and MOC-31, for distinguishing NSCLC from mesothelioma. Immunohistochemistry was performed on tissue microarrays containing 68 epithelioid mesotheliomas, 31 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, and 147 non-small-cell lung cancers (53 adenocarcinomas, 60 squamous cell carcinomas, 13 large-cell carcinomas, and 21 sarcomatoid carcinomas). For adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large-cell carcinoma, claudin-4 staining was present in 103 of 126 cases (82%), MOC-31 staining was present in 112 of 126 cases (89%), and Ber-EP4 staining was present in 113 of 126 cases (90%); these values were not statistically different. Claudin-4 stained 0 of 68 (0%), MOC-31 stained 22 of 68 (32%), and Ber-EP4 stained 24 of 68 (35%) epithelioid mesotheliomas; thus, the specificities for NSCLC versus epithelioid mesothelioma were 100%, 68%, and 65%, respectively. Claudin-4 staining was present in 7 of 21 (33%), MOC-31 staining was present in 8 of 21 (38%), and Ber-EP4 staining was present in 5 of 21 (24%) sarcomatoid carcinomas. All three markers were negative in 12 of 21 (57%) sarcomatoid carcinomas. Sarcomatoid mesotheliomas were not stained with any of these markers. We conclude that claudin-4 has considerably greater specificity and comparable sensitivity to MOC-31 and Ber-EP4 for distinguishing NSCLC from epithelioid malignant mesothelioma. The use of all three markers may be necessary for sarcomatoid neoplasms, given their limited sensitivity., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adenocarcinoma can be challenging to distinguish from malignant mesothelioma in effusions, and this distinction often requires ancillary studies and clinical correlation. Immunohistochemistry for claudin-4, a tight-junction-associated protein, has recently been shown to distinguish adenocarcinoma from malignant mesothelioma, mostly in surgical specimens. Our aim was to validate and assess the immunoreactivity profile of claudin-4 in a large series of malignant effusions., Methods: We evaluated 159 malignant effusions (84 adenocarcinomas and 75 malignant mesotheliomas). Claudin-4 immunohistochemistry was performed on cell-block paraffin sections and scored for staining intensity, staining pattern (cytoplasmic versus membranous), and percentage of positive tumor cells. Appropriate positive and negative controls were used throughout., Results: All cases of mesothelioma were negative for claudin-4 (0 of 64). Eighty-three of 84 cases of adenocarcinoma were positive (99%); 1 case of serous carcinoma was negative. Most adenocarcinomas showed strong and diffuse membranous staining (71 of 84; 84%); 12 cases (14%) showed membranous staining of moderate intensity. The overall sensitivity for adenocarcinoma was 99% (83 of 84)., Conclusions: Claudin-4 immunohistochemistry effectively distinguishes adenocarcinoma from malignant mesothelioma with high sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of malignant effusions., (© 2014 American Cancer Society.)

We compared claudin-4 with Ber-EP4 and carcinoembryonic antigen as markers to distinguish mesothelioma from lung adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated lung squamous cell carcinoma, and serous adenocarcinoma of the uterus or ovary. All mesothelioma specimens were negative for claudin-4, but 3 of 18 specimens were focally positive for Ber-EP4. In contrast, lung adenocarcinoma including poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma was highly positive for claudin-4, but expression of Ber-EP4 and carcinoembryonic antigen varied widely. Claudin-4 in poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma had a lower positive expression rate than in adenocarcinoma. Granular claudin-4 immunoreactivity was conspicuous in poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma; this immunoreactive pattern was also observed in mesothelioma. Claudin-4 was thus considered very useful marker for distinguishing mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma, even if histological specimens are small, as in biopsies that contain limited numbers of tumor cells. However, it should be mentioned that claudin-4 has a limit in discrimination between squamous cell carcinoma from mesothelioma.

Distinguishing between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and papillary serous carcinomas involving the peritoneum can be difficult on routine histological preparations, but this differential diagnosis can be facilitated by the use of immunohistochemistry. Recent investigations have indicated that PAX8, PAX2, claudin-4, and h-caldesmon are immunohistochemical markers that can assist in distinguishing between these two malignancies; however, much of the information published on the value of these markers is either insufficient or contradictory. The purpose of this study is to resolve some of the existing controversies and to fully determine the practical value of these markers for assisting in the differential diagnosis between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas. In order to do so, a total of 40 peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and 45 serous carcinomas (15 primary, 30 metastatic to the peritoneum) were investigated. PAX8 and PAX2 nuclear positivity was demonstrated in 42 (93%) and 25 (56%) of the serous carcinomas, respectively, whereas none of the mesotheliomas expressed either marker. Forty-four (98%) of the serous carcinomas exhibited claudin-4 reactivity along the cell membrane, whereas none of the mesotheliomas were positive for this marker. All of the serous carcinomas and mesotheliomas were negative for h-caldesmon. Based on these results, it is concluded that PAX8 and claudin-4 have a higher sensitivity and specificity for assisting in discriminating between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas when compared with all of the other positive carcinoma markers that are, at present, recommended to be included in the immunohistochemical panels used in this differential diagnosis. Even though it is highly specific, PAX2 has little practical value in the diagnosis of peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas as its sensitivity is low. The h-caldesmon is not useful.