Diagnostic performance of immunohistochemistry markers for malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and subtypes. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) poses diagnostic challenges due to its resemblance to benign pleural pathologies and different histological subtypes. Several immunohistochemistry markers have been employed to aid in accurate diagnosis. METHODS: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of various immunohistochemistry markers in malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and its histological subtypes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the literature for articles on using different immunohistochemical markers in MPM and its histological subtypes. EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library were searched for studies published up to August 2023. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria to assess the quality of the included articles. Meta-analyses were performed to determine prevalence using a random-effects model. RESULTS: 103 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a diverse range of immunohistochemistry markers. EMA and desmin-loss exhibited high sensitivity (96% and 92%, respectively) in distinguishing malignant pleural mesothelioma from benign pleural pathologies. Specificity was notably high for both BAP1-loss and survivin expression at 100%. Subtype-specific analyses demonstrated that EMA and HEG1 were sensitive markers for epithelioid mesothelioma, while GLUT1 showed high sensitivity for sarcomatoid mesothelioma. In cases comparing epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma, CAM5.2 and calretinin displayed high sensitivity, while WT1 and BAP1-loss demonstrated exceptional specificity for malignant epithelioid mesothelioma. In the case of sarcomatoid mesothelioma and sarcomatoid lung carcinoma, GATA3 exhibited the most heightened sensitivity, while GATA3 and D2-40 displayed the best specificity for sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Immunohistochemistry markers are essential in accurately diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma and its histological subtypes. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comprehensive insight into the diagnostic performance of these markers, facilitating their potential clinical utility in the discrimination of malignant pleural mesothelioma from other pleural pathologies and the differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma subtypes.

Diagnosis and treatment of malignant retroperitoneal mesothelioma: A case report.

RATIONALE: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare clinical disease. Although there are several reports describing intraperitoneal mesothelioma of the lung, liver, and intestine, retroperitoneal mesothelioma is, to our knowledge, very rare and rarely reported. In recent years, our best clinical protocols for the treatment and diagnosis of retroperitoneal mesothelioma have not been proven and the diagnosis and treatment are challenging. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 37-year-old Chinese woman complained of bilateral low back pain for a month, with obvious symptoms of low back pain on the left side. To treat low back pain, retroperitoneal masses were found during physical examination. The patient consulted a urological specialist for further treatment. DIAGNOSIS: After the operation, pathological biopsy confirmed retroperitoneal epithelioid diffuse mesothelioma. INTERVENTIONS: After exclusion of surgical contraindications, the patient underwent laparoscopic retroperitoneal lesion resection under tracheal intubation and general anesthesia, and the operation was successful. OUTCOMES: On the tenth day after surgery, the patient vital signs were stable, and he was discharged. LESSONS: Patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma may have no typical clinical symptoms, and the diagnosis is based on pathological and immunohistochemical examination. In selected patients, surgical cell reduction and intraoperative intraperitoneal heat chemotherapy have become the first choice of treatment, which can achieve ideal therapeutic effects and prolong survival.

Reliably making the primary diagnosis of mesothelioma utilizing serous fluid cytology specimens: an institutional experience.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of mesothelioma has historically been challenging, especially on serous fluid cytology (SFC). Distinguishing between reactive and neoplastic mesothelial cells can be difficult on cytomorphology alone. However, additional ancillary tests, such as BRCA1 associated protein-1 immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization for cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A deletion, can provide a sensitive and highly specific method of proving malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SFC specimens diagnosed as mesothelioma, suspicious for mesothelioma (SM), and atypical mesothelial cells (AMCs) since 2012 were identified by querying the laboratory information system. Clinical data and pathologic parameters were gathered. RESULTS: One hundred ten cases of mesothelioma, SM, and AMC were identified. Of these, 61 cases had a definitive diagnosis of mesothelioma on SFC. Average age at SFC diagnosis was 67 years (26-87 years), with most patients being male (67%). Out of the 61 cases, 11 cases (18%) had an initial diagnosis of mesothelioma made on SFC specimens, with 5 of these 11 cases being in patients that never received a histologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. Ancillary studies were utilized in all 11 cases. An initial diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma was made on SFC in 9 cases (15%). For 6 of these 9 cases, the SFC diagnosis was the sole diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma without a companion histologic diagnosis. In addition, 15 cases were diagnosed as SM, with 11 of these cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis. Thirty-four cases were diagnosed as AMC, with 27 cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of mesothelioma can be reliably made on SFC with the appropriate cytomorphology criteria and/or confirmatory ancillary testing.

CHST4 Gene as a Potential Predictor of Clinical Outcome in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) develops primarily from asbestos exposures and has a poor prognosis. In this study, The Cancer Genome Atlas was used to perform a comprehensive survival analysis, which identified the CHST4 gene as a potential predictor of favorable overall survival for patients with MPM. An enrichment analysis of favorable prognostic genes, including CHST4, showed immune-related ontological terms, whereas an analysis of unfavorable prognostic genes indicated cell-cycle-related terms. CHST4 mRNA expression in MPM was significantly correlated with Bindea immune-gene signatures. To validate the relationship between CHST4 expression and prognosis, we performed an immunohistochemical analysis of CHST4 protein expression in 23 surgical specimens from surgically treated patients with MPM who achieved macroscopic complete resection. The score calculated from the proportion and intensity staining was used to compare the intensity of CHST4 gene expression, which showed that CHST4 expression was stronger in patients with a better postoperative prognosis. The median overall postoperative survival was 107.8 months in the high-expression-score group and 38.0 months in the low-score group (p = 0.044, log-rank test). Survival after recurrence was also significantly improved by CHST4 expression. These results suggest that CHST4 is useful as a prognostic biomarker in MPM.

Molecular and Immunohistochemical Testing in Mesothelioma and Other Mesothelial Lesions.

CONTEXT.­: Molecular testing has increasingly been utilized in the evaluation of mesothelioma. Diffuse mesothelioma comprises multiple distinct genetic subgroups. While most diffuse mesotheliomas lack oncogenic kinase mutations and instead harbor alterations involving tumor suppressors and chromatin regulators, a minor subset of tumors is characterized by uncommon alterations such as germline mutations, genomic near-haploidization, ALK rearrangement, ATF1 rearrangement, or EWSR1::YY1 fusion. OBJECTIVE.­: To provide updates on the salient molecular features of diffuse mesothelioma, mesothelioma in situ, and other mesothelial lesions: well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor, adenomatoid tumor, peritoneal inclusion cyst, and others. We consider the diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive utility of molecular testing in mesothelial lesions. DATA SOURCES.­: We performed a literature review of recently described genetic features, molecular approaches, and immunohistochemical tools, including BAP1, MTAP, and merlin in mesothelioma and other mesothelial lesions. CONCLUSIONS.­: Our evolving understanding of the molecular diversity of diffuse mesothelioma and other mesothelial lesions has led to considerable changes in pathology diagnostic practice, including the application of immunohistochemical markers such as BAP1, MTAP, and merlin (NF2), which are surrogates of mutation status. In young patients and/or those without significant asbestos exposure, unusual mesothelioma genetics such as germline mutations, ALK rearrangement, and ATF1 rearrangement should be considered.

The over diagnosis of diffuse mesothelioma: An analysis of 311 cases with recommendations for the avoidance of pitfalls.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of mesothelioma may be challenging. We investigated a large database of cases in order to determine the frequency with which a diagnosis of mesothelioma was made incorrectly and the most frequent causes of error. DESIGN: A database including more than 4000 consultation cases of histologically confirmed mesothelioma was examined to identify cases in which mesothelioma was diagnosed by at least one pathologist when the available information pointed towards a different diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 311 cases misdiagnosed as mesothelioma. The most common category was metastatic carcinoma to the pleura or peritoneum (129 cases: 73 lung carcinomas, 15 renal cell carcinomas). The next most common category was primary lung cancer (111 cases: 55 sarcomatoid carcinoma, 56 pseudomesotheliomatous carcinoma). The third most common category was primary malignancies arising from or near the serosal membranes (33 cases). The fourth most common category was fibrous pleurisy (38 cases). The most common errors were failure to consider important radiographic information regarding the gross distribution of tumor, lack of awareness or consideration of another malignancy, overreliance on certain immunohistochemical results, and failure to perform certain diagnostic histochemical, immunohistochemical, or ultrastructural studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of diagnostic pitfalls that can lead to the over diagnosis of mesothelioma. Careful attention to clinical and radiographic information as well as performance of appropriate ancillary tests can help to prevent such misdiagnoses. Detailed examples will be presented to assist in the avoidance of these pitfalls with emphasis on the most commonly observed errors.

An Updated Contextual Approach to Mesothelial Proliferations in Pleural Effusion Cytology Leveraging Morphology, Ancillary Studies, and Novel Biomarkers.

CONTEXT.­: Pleural effusions are common cytologic specimens that can be leveraged to make diagnoses of malignancy that drive appropriate patient management. However, the overlap in morphologic features of reactive mesothelial proliferations, mesotheliomas, and adenocarcinomas can create diagnostic pitfalls in the cytologic evaluation of pleural fluids. OBJECTIVE.­: To review the morphologic spectrum of benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations in pleural effusions, as well as relevant clinicoradiologic contexts and ancillary tests. DATA SOURCES.­: Existing scientific and clinical literature as of January 2023. CONCLUSIONS.­: We can leverage the knowledge of several overlapping morphologic features, clinicoradiologic scenarios, and immunohistochemical studies to enhance the diagnostic accuracy of pleural effusion cytology to appropriately delineate cases of adenocarcinoma, reactive mesothelial proliferation, and mesothelioma. Earlier diagnosis through cytology, particularly in cases of mesothelioma, may positively impact patient treatment options and prognosis.

SPARC Is a Novel Positive Immunohistochemical Marker of Epithelioid Mesothelioma to Differentiate It From Lung Adenocarcinoma and/or Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Epithelioid mesothelioma with a solid histologic pattern (solid epithelioid mesothelioma) is difficult to distinguish from a poorly differentiated squamous cell lung carcinoma and/or solid lung adenocarcinoma. Thus, immunohistochemical markers are essential for diagnosis; however, the sensitivity and specificity of pre-existing mesothelial markers are suboptimal, particularly for differentiation from squamous cell carcinoma. Using a cancer-dependency map, we analyzed gene expression data of pleural mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer cell lines (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma) and identified secreted protein acidic and cysteine-rich (SPARC) as a promising candidate for the differential diagnosis of epithelioid mesothelioma from lung squamous cell carcinoma and/or lung adenocarcinoma. SPARC expression in mesothelioma and lung cancer cell lines was validated using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction, western blotting, and immunohistochemistry. Immunohistochemical staining was performed using anti-SPARC antibodies against solid epithelioid mesothelioma, solid lung adenocarcinoma, and poorly differentiated lung squamous cell carcinoma. SPARC positivity was seen in 42/45 (93.3%) of solid epithelioid mesothelioma, 2/40 (5%) solid lung adenocarcinoma, and 2/45 (4.5%) of lung squamous cell carcinomas. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for differentiating solid epithelioid mesothelioma from lung cancer (solid lung adenocarcinoma and poorly differentiated lung squamous cell carcinoma) were 93.3, 95.2, and 94.6%, respectively. In conclusion, SPARC is a novel mesothelial marker that can be used to differentiate epithelioid mesothelioma from squamous cell carcinoma and lung adenocarcinoma.

New developments in mesothelial pathology.

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.

Localized pleural mesothelioma in a dog.

Malignant mesotheliomas with localized growth are extremely rare in dogs. A 9-year-old male dog presented with a localized tumour that originated from the parietal pleura and had polypoid growth in the thoracic cavity. Histological examination revealed that the tumour consisted of tubular formations with scattered cysts and minimal papillary growth pattern. Neoplastic cells were immunopositive for mesothelial markers (calretinin and Wilms' tumour gene 1) and negative for carcinoma markers (thyroid transcription factor 1 and tumour protein 63). The animal was alive with no recurrence or metastasis/dissemination 11 months after surgery. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a localized mesothelioma in a dog without metastasis/dissemination and highlights the value of mesothelial markers for an accurate diagnosis.

Uroplakin-IIIb as a novel immunohistochemical marker for mesothelioma.

Distinguishing mesothelioma from non-small cell lung carcinoma often requires a battery of immunohistochemical stains, as many traditional markers used in mesothelioma lack sufficient specificity to allow them to be used alone. A recent large-scale TMA screen identified uroplakin-IIIb (UpIIIb; clone MSVA-736M) as a potentially specific marker for mesothelioma. We examined the performance of this antibody using tissue microarrays containing a panel of 48 epithelioid mesotheliomas, 26 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, and 144 non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs). Here we show that UpIIIb has good sensitivity (37/47 evaluable cases positive, 79%) and excellent specificity for distinguishing epithelioid mesothelioma from NSCLC (0/140 evaluable cases positive). UPIIIb sensitivity for epithelioid mesotheliomas was only slightly inferior to the established highly specific mesothelioma marker HEG1 (41/46 evaluable cases positive on the same TMA, 89%). However, UpIIIb did not stain any sarcomatoid mesotheliomas (0/24 evaluable cases positive). We also found that UpIIIb stained a proportion of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas, a perennial diagnostic confounder in the context of mesotheliomas. Taken together, our data suggest that UpIIIb can be used as a highly specific and sensitive mesothelial marker when the diagnostic question is epithelioid mesothelioma versus NSCLC; in particular, UpIIIb staining will pick up some number of epithelioid mesotheliomas that are HEG1 negative. Since UpIIIb is known to stain some proportion of urothelial carcinomas as well as gynecologic and a few pancreatic tumors, it should be used with caution in the peritoneal cavity or when the differential diagnosis includes carcinomas from these locations.

Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a malignant tumor originating from the pleura, and its incidence has been increasing in recent years. Due to the insidious onset and strong local invasiveness of MPM, most patients are diagnosed in the late stage and early screening and treatment for high-risk populations are crucial. The treatment of MPM mainly includes surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Immunotherapy and electric field therapy have also been applied, leading to further improvements in patient survival. The Mesothelioma Group of the Yangtze River Delta Lung Cancer Cooperation Group (East China LUng caNcer Group, ECLUNG; Youth Committee) developed a national consensus on the clinical diagnosis and treatment of MPM based on existing clinical research evidence and the opinions of national experts. This consensus aims to promote the homogenization and standardization of MPM diagnosis and treatment in China, covering epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

[Cytopathological characterization of ascites for the diagnosis of serous ovarian carcinoma].

Objective: To investigate the cytomorphological and immunocytochemical features of tumor cells in the ascites of ovarian plasmacytoma (SOC). Methods: Specimens of serous cavity effusions were collected from 61 tumor patients admitted to the Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January 2015 to July 2021, including ascites from 32 SOC, 10 gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, 5 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, 6 lung adenocarcinomas, 4 benign mesothelial hyperplasia and 1 malignant mesothelioma patients, pleural effusions from 2 malignant mesothelioma patients and pericardial effusion from 1 malignant mesothelioma. Serous cavity effusion samples of all patients were collected, conventional smears were made through centrifugation, and cell paraffin blocks were made through centrifugation of remaining effusion samples. Conventional HE staining and immunocytochemical staining were applied to observe and summarize cytomorphological characteristics and immunocytochemical characteristics. The levels of serum tumor markers carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) were detected. Results: Of the 32 SOC patients, 5 had low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC) and 27 had high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC). 29 (90.6%) SOC patients had elevated serum CA125, but the difference was not statistically significant between them and patients with non-ovarian primary lesions included in the study (P>0.05); The serum CEA was positive in 9 patients with gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma and 5 patients with lung adenocarcinoma, and the positive rate was higher than that in SOC patients (P<0.001); The serum CA19-9 was positive in 5 patients with gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma and 5 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and the positive rate was higher than that in SOC patients (P<0.05). The serum CA125, CEA and CA19-9 were within the normal range in 4 patients with benign mesothelial hyperplasia. LGSOC tumor cells were less heterogeneous and aggregated into small clusters or papillary pattern, and psammoma bodies could be observed in some LGSOC cases. The background cells were fewer and lymphocytes were predominant; the papillary structure was more obvious after making cell wax blocks. HGSOC tumor cells were highly heterogeneous, with significantly enlarged nuclei and varying sizes, which could be more than 3-fold different, and nucleoli and nuclear schizophrenia could be observed in some cases; tumor cells were mostly clustered into nested clusters, papillae and prune shapes; there were more background cells, mainly histiocytes. Immunocytochemical staining showed that AE1/AE3, CK7, PAX-8, CA125, and WT1 were diffusely positively expressed in 32 SOC cases. P53 was focally positive in all 5 LGSOCs, diffusely positive in 23 HGSOCs, and negative in the other 4 HGSOCs. Most of adenocarcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract and lung had a history of surgery, and tumor cells of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tend to form small cell nests. Immunocytochemistry can assist in the differential diagnosis of mesothelial-derived lesions with characteristic "open window" phenomenon. Conclusion: Combining the clinical manifestations of the patient, the morphological characteristics of the cells in the smear and cell block of the ascites can provide important clues for the diagnosis of SOC, and the immunocytochemical tests can further improve the accuracy of the diagnosis.

Diffuse intrapulmonary mesothelioma mimicking pulmonary lepidic adenocarcinoma: a rare case report and review of the literature.

Mesothelioma, with various clinical manifestations, radiological features, and histomorphological types, can be divided into epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic types, according to their histomorphological characteristics. There is a rare growth pattern of pleural mesothelioma: diffuse intrapulmonary mesothelioma (DIM), with a distinctive pattern of predominantly intrapulmonary growth, has no or minimal pleural involvement, and simulates interstitial lung disease(ILD) clinically and radiologically. A 59-year-old man presented to the hospital with recurrent pleural effusions for 4 years and a history of asbestos exposure. Computed tomography (CT) showed bilateral pure ground-glass opacity lesions, and the tumor cells showed a lepidic growth pattern pathologically. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for CK, WT-1, calretinin, D2-40, CK5/6, and Claudin4, while TTF-1, CEA, EMA, CK7, CK20, and other epithelial markers were negative. BAP1 loss its expression, and MTAP was positive in cytoplasm. CDKN2A was negative tested by Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The final diagnosis was DIM. In conclusion, we should recognize this rare disease to avoid misdiagnosis and delayed treatment.

Comprehensive epithelial biomarker analysis of malignant mesothelioma: EpCAM positivity is a potential diagnostic pitfall.

BACKGROUND: Epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) is frequently used to distinguish carcinoma from background mesothelial cells during cytologic examination of body cavity fluids. Previously, the authors identified one malignant mesothelioma case with strong and diffuse membranous EpCAM staining, making it indistinguishable from carcinoma. METHODS: In this study, the authors evaluated all available effusion specimens from patients with malignant mesothelioma, including the above-mentioned index case, obtained at Stanford Health Care, from 2011 to 2021 (N = 17) as well as control cases (N = 5). Analyses included an immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay for EpCAM and claudin-4, a multiplexed immunofluorescent (IF) assay for EpCAM, and an RNA in situ hybridization assay targeting EpCAM. RESULTS: The authors detected EpCAM positivity of variable intensity and percentage in four malignant mesothelioma cases (23.5%; although only two showed positivity for the epithelial-specific IHC marker MOC31 in ≥40% of cells) and claudin-4 negativity in all cases, with two cases displaying focal and weak claudin-4 staining in <1% of cells. Multiplexed IF staining on the cases with EpCAM IHC positivity showed strong, membranous EpCAM staining in one of four cases. RNA in situ hybridization also was used to assess the correlation between EpCAM positivity by IHC/IF and RNA expression levels. Strong EpCAM RNA expression was detected in the three malignant mesothelioma cases. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings revealed that a subset of epithelioid malignant mesothelioma cases mimic or exhibit the immunophenotypic features of carcinoma when evaluating for EpCAM only. Additional biomarker testing, such as claudin-4, may help avoid this potential pitfall to yield accurate diagnoses.

TRPS1 outperforms GATA3 in pleural effusions with metastatic breast carcinoma versus mesothelioma.

INTRODUCTION: In evaluating malignant pleural fluid cytology, metastatic adenocarcinomas and mesotheliomas are often differential diagnoses. GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3) has historically been used to confirm metastatic breast carcinomas; however, GATA3 has low specificity if mesothelioma is included in differential diagnoses. Trichorhinophalangeal syndrome type 1 (TRPS1) protein is expressed in all types of breast carcinomas, with reported high specificity and sensitivity. We investigated the performance of TRPS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and compared it to GATA3 in pleural fluids diagnosed with metastatic breast carcinoma and mesothelioma. METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive ThinPrep pleural fluids and 4 pleural fine needle aspirations (FNAs) with diagnoses of metastatic breast carcinoma (21) and mesothelioma (19) were retrieved, and IHC with TRPS1 and GATA3 was performed on all. Immunoreactivity scores for TRPS1 were calculated by multiplying percentage of immunoreactive cells by staining intensity. Immunoreactivity scores were negative if 0 or 1, low positive if 2, intermediate positive if 3 or 4, or high positive if 6 or 9. Nuclear immunoreactivity of ≥10% with at least moderate intensity was judged GATA3 positive. RESULTS: GATA3 showed immunoreactivity in all metastatic breast carcinomas and 84% of mesotheliomas. TRPS1 was immunoreactive in all breast carcinoma cases (18 with a score of 9 and 3 with a score of 6). TRPS1 showed low positivity in 5% of mesothelioma cases with all other cases being negative. CONCLUSION: When cytomorphologic differential diagnoses of mesothelioma exist, TRPS1 is a more specific marker than GATA3 for confirmation of metastatic breast carcinoma in pleural fluid cytology.

Validity of diagnoses of respiratory diseases recorded in a Japanese administrative database.

BACKGROUND: Validating the information recorded in administrative databases is essential. However, no study has comprehensively validated the accuracy of Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) data on various respiratory diseases. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the validity of diagnoses of respiratory diseases in the DPC database. METHODS: We conducted chart reviews of 400 patients hospitalized in the departments of respiratory medicine in two acute-care hospitals in Tokyo, between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2021, and used them as reference standards. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of DPC data on 25 respiratory diseases were determined. RESULTS: Sensitivity ranged from 22.2% (aspiration pneumonia) to 100% (chronic eosinophilic pneumonia and malignant pleural mesothelioma) and was <50% for eight diseases, while specificity was >90% for all diseases. PPV ranged from 40.0% (aspiration pneumonia) to 100% (coronavirus disease 2019, bronchiectasis, chronic eosinophilic pneumonia, pulmonary hypertension, squamous cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, lung cancer of other histological types, and malignant pleural mesothelioma) and was >80% for 16 diseases. Except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (82.9%) and interstitial pneumonia (other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis) (85.4%), NPV was >90% for all diseases. These validity indices were similar in both hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of diagnoses of respiratory diseases in the DPC database was high in general, thereby providing an important basis for future studies.

Highlighting the immunohistochemical differences of malignant mesothelioma subtypes via case presentations.

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare tumor of mesothelial cells, with an increasing incidence both in developed and developing countries. MM has three major histological subtypes, in order of frequency, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of 2021: epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid MM. Distinction may be a challenging task for the pathologist, due to the unspecific morphology. Here, we present two cases of diffuse MM subtypes to emphasize the immunohistochemical (IHC) differences, and to facilitate diagnostic difficulties. In our first case of epithelioid mesothelioma, the neoplastic cells showed cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), calretinin, and Wilms-tumor-1 (WT1) expression, while remaining negative with thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF-1). BRCA1 associated protein-1 (BAP1) negativity was seen in the neoplastic cells' nucleus, reflecting loss of the tumor suppressor gene. In the second case of biphasic mesothelioma, expression of epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), CKAE1/AE3, and mesothelin was observed, while WT1, BerEP4, CD141, TTF1, p63, CD31, calretinin, and BAP1 expressions were not detected. Due to the absence of specific histological features, the differentiation between MM subtypes could be a challenging task. In routine diagnostic work, IHC may be the proper method in distinction. According to our results and literature data, CK5/6, mesothelin, calretinin, and Ki-67 should be applied in subclassification.