An unusual case of persistent consolidation: Idiopathic lymphoid interstitial pneumonia.

Lymphocytic interstitial pneumonia (LIP) is a rare but largely benign interstitial lung disease, most frequently associated with HIV and autoimmune conditions. It is infrequently found to be an idiopathic condition. Diagnosis is complex and can require numerous invasive tests as evidenced in the case presented. The diagnosis is made from a combination of clinical, radiological, and histological features but the unusual radiological and clinical features meant diagnosis in our case required surgical biopsy. There is minimal evidence around best treatment although largely involves targeting the underlying cause. There is a small risk of transformation to lymphoma and fibrosis. Immunosuppression with steroids is the most common therapeutic strategy however in our case the radiographic changes spontaneously resolved. We present a case of an immunocompetent male presenting with significant radiological and histopathological findings of LIP, without significant symptomatology, that spontaneously resolved without intervention suggesting a monitoring approach may be a valid management strategy.

DNA damage-inducible transcript 3 immunohistochemistry is highly sensitive for the diagnosis of myxoid liposarcoma but care is required in interpreting the significance of focal expression.

AIMS: Myxoid liposarcoma (MLPS) is characterised by DNA damage-inducible transcript 3 (DDIT3) gene rearrangements, confirmation of which is commonly used diagnostically. Recently, DDIT3 immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been reported to be highly sensitive and, when strict criteria are employed, specific for the diagnosis of MLPS. The aim of this study was to independently investigate DDIT3 IHC as a diagnostic marker for MLPS. METHODS AND RESULTS: DDIT3 IHC was performed on 52 MLPS and on 152 mimics on whole sections, and on 515 non-MLPS sarcomas in tissue microarray format. Only one MLPS (which had undergone acid-based decalcification) was completely negative. With inclusion of this case if any nuclear expression is considered to indicate positivity, the overall sensitivity of DDIT3 is 98% (51 of 52 cases) and the specificity is 94% (633 of 667 non-MLPS cases are negative). If a cut-off of >10% of neoplastic cells is required for positivity, then the sensitivity remains 98% (51/52) and the specificity is 98.5% (657 of 667 non-MLPS cases are negative). If a cut-off of >50% of cells is required for positivity, then the sensitivity is 96% (50 of 52 cases) but the specificity improves to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse nuclear DDIT3 expression occurs in the overwhelming majority of MLPSs, and can be used to confirm the diagnosis in most cases without the need for molecular testing. A complete absence of expression argues strongly against MLPS, and almost completely excludes this diagnosis, particularly if there is consideration of technical factors such as decalcification. The significance of focal DDIT3 expression should be interpreted in the morphological and clinical context, although most tumours showing only focal expression are not MLPS.

When used together SS18-SSX fusion-specific and SSX C-terminus immunohistochemistry are highly specific and sensitive for the diagnosis of synovial sarcoma and can replace FISH or molecular testing in most cases.

AIMS: Synovial sarcoma is defined by recurrent t(X;18)(p11;q11) translocations creating SS18-SSX1, SS18-SSX2 or SS18-SSX4 fusions. Recently, a novel rabbit monoclonal antibody designed to identify these fusions (SS18-SSX, clone E9X9V) was proposed to be highly specific (100%), but not completely sensitive (95%) for this diagnosis. Another antibody designed to identify the C-terminal end of SSX (SSX_CT, clone E5A2C) was proposed to be highly sensitive (100%), but not completely specific (96%). We sought to validate these antibodies in an independent cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed immunohistochemistry for SS18-SSX and SSX_CT on 39 synovial sarcoma samples from 25 patients with confirmed gene rearrangements. Thirty-four (87%) and 36 (92%) were positive for SS18-SSX and SSX_CT, respectively. False-negative staining was associated with suboptimally handled small biopsies and decalcified specimens, even when staining was diffuse and strong in subsequent optimally processed excisions and non-decalcified areas. None of 580 non-synovial sarcoma tumours (76 whole sections, 504 TMA samples) were positive for SS18-SSX (100% specificity), whereas 39 (93% specificity) were positive for SSX_CT. CONCLUSIONS: SS18-SSX fusion-specific IHC is 87-95% sensitive for the diagnosis of synovial sarcoma and highly (perhaps perfectly) specific. Therefore, positive SS18-SSX staining definitively confirms the diagnosis of synovial sarcoma. SSX_CT is less specific (93-96%) but highly sensitive (92%, but approaching 100% when suboptimally processed biopsies and decalcified specimens are excluded). Negative SSX_CT staining may therefore have an ancillary role as a rule-out test for synovial sarcoma. We caution that both antibodies are prone to false-negative staining in decalcified specimens.