Search

Pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma continues to evolve. These updated guidelines (1) reflect the authors' expert opinion, informed by a thorough review of relevant literature. The contents were discussed at the [...], * Context.--Mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective.--To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. Data Sources.--Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with expertise in mesothelioma contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. Conclusions.--There was consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) histomorphologic diagnosis of mesothelial tumors, including distinction of epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma; recognition of morphologic variants and patterns; and recognition of common morphologic pitfalls; (2) molecular pathogenesis of mesothelioma; (3) application of immunohistochemical markers to establish mesothelial lineage and distinguish mesothelioma from common morphologic differentials; (4) application of ancillary studies to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations, including BAP1 and MTAP immunostains; novel immunomarkers such as Merlin and p53; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for homozygous deletion of CDKN2A; and novel molecular assays; (5) practical recommendations for routine reporting of mesothelioma, including grading epithelioid mesothelioma and other prognostic parameters; (6) diagnosis of mesothelioma in situ; (7) cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma, including use of immunostains and molecular assays; and (8) features of nonmalignant peritoneal mesothelial lesions. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2024;148:1251-1271; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2023-0304-RA)

The histologic features of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), the fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) pattern seen in, but not limited to, clinical idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), was first described by [...], * Context.--The pathologic diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) remains a challenging area, and application of histologic UIP guidelines has proved difficult. Objective.--To understand current practice approaches by pulmonary pathologists for the histologic diagnosis of UIP and other fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Design.--The Pulmonary Pathology Society (PPS) ILD Working Group developed and sent a 5-part survey on fibrotic ILD electronically to the PPS membership. Results.--One hundred sixty-one completed surveys were analyzed. Of the respondents, 89% reported using published histologic features in clinical guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in their pathologic diagnosis; however, there was variability in reporting terminology, quantity and quality of histologic features, and the use of guideline categorization. Respondents were very likely to have access to pulmonary pathology colleagues (79%), pulmonologists (98%), and radiologists (94%) to discuss cases. Half of respondents reported they may alter their pathologic diagnosis based on additional clinical and radiologic history if it is pertinent. Airway-centered fibrosis, granulomas, and types of inflammatory infiltrates were considered important, but there was poor agreement on how these features are defined. Conclusions.--There is significant consensus among the PPS membership on the importance of histologic guidelines/features of UIP. There are unmet needs for (1) consensus and standardization of diagnostic terminology and incorporation of recommended histopathologic categories from the clinical IPF guidelines into pathology reports, (2) agreement on how to incorporate into the report relevant clinical and radiographic information, and (3) defining the quantity and quality of features needed to suggest alternative diagnoses. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2024;148:168-177; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2022-0530-OA)

Diffuse interstitial lung diseases (ILD) are a heterogeneous group that differ widely in their pathogenesis, clinicopathologic features, therapeutic options, and prognosis. In approximately 30% of ILD patients, the specific diagnosis [...], * Context.--Transbronchial cryobiopsy is an emerging procedure to obtain lung tissue for diagnosis of interstitial lung disease and has gained popularity because it is less invasive and has a lower rate of complications compared with nonselective surgical lung biopsy. Objective.--To provide an overview of the status of the medical literature regarding transbronchial cryobiopsy. Data Sources.--A literature search was performed using PubMed search engine. The terms "cryobiopsy" or "cryo-probe" and "interstitial lung disease" or "diffuse parenchymal lung disease" or "pulmonary fibrosis" were used, with the search concluding at the end of November 2019. Conclusions.--While the diagnostic yield of transbronchial cryobiopsy is slightly lower than surgical lung biopsy, a growing amount of literature suggests that with a multidisciplinary approach cryobiopsy provides diagnostic and prognostic information approaching that of surgical lung biopsy with lower morbidity and mortality. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0007-RA

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with a histologic and/or radiographic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and a prognosis similar to [...], * Context.--Accurate diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) requires multidisciplinary diagnosis that includes clinical, radiologic, and often pathologic assessment. In 2018, the American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and the Latin American Thoracic Society (ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT) and the Fleischner Society each published guidelines for the diagnosis of IPF, which include criteria for 4 categories of confidence of a histologic usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern. Objective.--To (1) identify the role of the guidelines in pathologic assessment of UIP; (2) analyze the 4 guideline categories, including potential areas of difficulty; and (3) determine steps the Pulmonary Pathology Society and the greater pulmonary pathology community can take to improve current guideline criteria and histopathologic diagnosis of interstitial lung disease. Data Sources.--Data were derived from the guidelines, published literature, and clinical experience. Conclusions.--Both guidelines provide pathologists with a tool to relay to the clinician the likelihood that a biopsy represents UIP, and serve as an adjunct, not a replacement, for traditional histologic diagnosis. There are multiple challenges with implementing the guidelines, including (1) lack of clarity on the quantity and quality of histologic findings required, (2) lack of recognition that histologic features cannot be assessed independently, and (3) lack of guidance on how pathologists should incorporate clinical and radiographic information. Current criteria for "probable UIP" and "indeterminate for UIP" hinder accurate reflection of the likelihood of IPF. These challenges highlight the need for further morphologic-based investigations in the field of pulmonary pathology. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0052-RA

BackgroundIn 2002 the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) classification of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs) defined seven specific entities, and provided standardized terminology and diagnostic criteria. In addition, the historical "gold standard" of histologic diagnosis was replaced by a multidisciplinary approach. Since 2002 many publications have provided new information about IIPs.PurposeThe objective of this statement is to update the 2002 ATS/ERS classification of IIPs.MethodsAn international multidisciplinary panel was formed and developed key questions that were addressed through a review of the literature published between 2000 and 2011.ResultsSubstantial progress has been made in IIPs since the previous classification. Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is now better defined. Respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease is now commonly diagnosed without surgical biopsy. The clinical course of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is recognized to be heterogeneous. Acute exacerbation of IIPs is now well defined. A substantial percentage of patients with IIP are difficult to classify, often due to mixed patterns of lung injury. A classification based on observed disease behavior is proposed for patients who are difficult to classify or for entities with heterogeneity in clinical course. A group of rare entities, including pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis and rare histologic patterns, is introduced. The rapidly evolving field of molecular markers is reviewed with the intent of promoting additional investigations that may help in determining diagnosis, and potentially prognosis and treatment.ConclusionsThis update is a supplement to the previous 2002 IIP classification document. It outlines advances in the past decade and potential areas for future investigation.

The pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) continues to evolve and be refined as more antibodies and molecular tests become available for general use. This is especially applicable to distinguishing [...], Context.--Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose.Objective.--To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM.Data Sources.--Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with an interest and expertise in the field contributed to this update. Reference material included up-to-date, peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.Conclusions.--There was discussion and consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) recognition of the key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid MM, (7) use of molecular markers in the diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of mM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels employed is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Depending on the morphology, immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers for mesothelial differentiation and for lesions considered in the differential diagnosis. Immunohistochemical markers should have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic and membranous markers). Selected molecular markers are now being used to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations. These guidelines are meant to be a practical diagnostic reference for the pathologist; however, some new pathologic predictors of prognosis and response to therapy are also included.(Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:89-108; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0124-RA)