Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma on Cytology: A Gene Expression Panel versus BRCA1-Associated Protein 1 and p16 Tests.

Pleural effusions are among the first clinical manifestations of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and often constitute the only available material for diagnosis. Although an MPM diagnosis can be reliable on cytology, the reported sensitivity is low (30% to 75%). Particularly, it can be hard to discriminate epithelioid MPM, the most common histotype, from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (MH). Currently, BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) and CDKN2A (p16), evaluated by immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization, respectively, are the most valuable markers to discriminate MPM and MH. Both markers have a high specificity, but their sensitivity is not always satisfying, even when used together. We have recently developed a 117-gene expression panel, based on Nanostring technology, able to differentiate epithelioid MPM from MH pleural tissues better than BAP1 and p16. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy of the same panel on an independent retrospective cohort of 23 MPM and 11 MH pleural effusions (cell blocks and smears). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the panel were equal to 0.9565 and 1, respectively. Moreover, the panel performance was compared with BAP1 and p16 on 25 cell blocks. Sensitivity levels of gene panel, BAP1 alone, p16 alone, and BAP1 plus p16 were 1, 0.5882, 0.4706, and 0.7647, respectively. Specificity was always 1. Although further validation is needed, this gene panel could really facilitate patients' management, allowing a definitive MPM diagnosis directly on pleural effusions.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma and mesothelial hyperplasia: A new molecular tool for the differential diagnosis.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare asbestos related cancer, aggressive and unresponsive to therapies. Histological examination of pleural lesions is the gold standard of MPM diagnosis, although it is sometimes hard to discriminate the epithelioid type of MPM from benign mesothelial hyperplasia (MH).This work aims to define a new molecular tool for the differential diagnosis of MPM, using the expression profile of 117 genes deregulated in this tumour.The gene expression analysis was performed by nanoString System on tumour tissues from 36 epithelioid MPM and 17 MH patients, and on 14 mesothelial pleural samples analysed in a blind way. Data analysis included raw nanoString data normalization, unsupervised cluster analysis by Pearson correlation, non-parametric Mann Whitney U-test and molecular classification by the Uncorrelated Shrunken Centroid (USC) Algorithm.The Mann-Whitney U-test found 35 genes upregulated and 31 downregulated in MPM. The unsupervised cluster analysis revealed two clusters, one composed only of MPM and one only of MH samples, thus revealing class-specific gene profiles. The Uncorrelated Shrunken Centroid algorithm identified two classifiers, one including 22 genes and the other 40 genes, able to properly classify all the samples as benign or malignant using gene expression data; both classifiers were also able to correctly determine, in a blind analysis, the diagnostic categories of all the 14 unknown samples.In conclusion we delineated a diagnostic tool combining molecular data (gene expression) and computational analysis (USC algorithm), which can be applied in the clinical practice for the differential diagnosis of MPM.

The Italian external quality assessment for RAS testing in colorectal carcinoma identifies methods-related inter-laboratory differences.

BACKGROUND: In 2014 the European Medicines Agency included exon 2, 3 and 4 KRAS and NRAS testing for the selection of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients eligible for the therapy with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society of Pathology and Cytology (SIAPEC) organized an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for CRC to evaluate inter-laboratory consistency and to ensure standardization of the results in the transition from KRAS to all-RAS testing. METHODS: Ten formalin fixed paraffin embedded specimens including KRAS/NRAS (exons 2, 3, 4) and BRAF (codon 600) mutations were validated by three referral laboratories and sent to 88 participant centers. Molecular pathology sample reports were also requested to each laboratory. A board of assessors from AIOM and SIAPEC evaluated the results according to a predefined scoring system. The scheme was composed of two rounds. RESULTS: In the first round 36% of the 88 participants failed, with 23 centers having at least one false positive or false negative while 9 centers did not meet the deadline. The genotyping error rate was higher when Sanger sequencing was employed for testing as compared with pyrosequencing (3 vs 1.3%; p = 0.01; Pearson Chi Square test). In the second round, the laboratories improved their performance, with 23/32 laboratories passing the round. Overall, 79/88 participants passed the RAS EQA scheme. Standardized Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature was incorrectly used to describe the mutations identified and relevant variations were noticed in the genotype specification. CONCLUSION: The results of the Italian RAS EQA scheme indicate that the mutational analyses are performed with good quality in many Italian centers, although significant differences in the methods used were highlighted. The relatively high number of centers failing the first round underlines the fundamental role in continued education covered by EQA schemes.

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene rearrangements in cytological samples of non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with histological assessment.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements are detected in approximately 5% of cases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients who are positive for ALK rearrangements may be successfully treated with the ALK inhibitor crizotinib. Because advanced-stage lung cancers are not suitable for surgical resection, approximately 70% of patients are diagnosed via preoperative specimens. In the current study, the authors evaluated the suitability of stained cytologic direct smears and cell blocks for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to determine ALK status compared with small biopsies. METHODS: A total of 493 consecutive patients with NSCLC were analyzed by FISH for ALK gene rearrangements. The analyzed sample comprised 180 cytological samples, 94 direct smears, 86 cell blocks, and 313 preoperative small biopsies. Moreover, in the same series, 426 patients and 369 patients, respectively, were evaluated for epidermal growth factor receptor and KRAS mutations, respectively. RESULTS: Of the total of 493 patients, 18 patients who were positive for a gene rearrangement (4.4%) demonstrated ALK FISH rearrangements, whereas 387 patients (95.6%) were negative. All other cases were classified as inadequate (7.7%) and insufficient (10.1%). A strong statistical association was found between the cytology and the small biopsy with respect to ALK rearrangements (P=.0048). Fifty-three patients (12.4%) demonstrated an epidermal growth factor receptor mutation, whereas 90 patients (24.4%) were found to have KRAS mutations. None of these patients presented with ALK gene rearrangements. CONCLUSIONS: ALK gene rearrangements may be easily detected in cytological samples and particularly in direct smears, thereby yielding important improvements in the diagnostic approach to patients with advanced NSCLC. Cytological samples may be useful for ALK analysis when insufficient material is available in cell blocks or small biopsies.

Differential expression of extracellular matrix constituents and cell adhesion molecules between malignant pleural mesothelioma and mesothelial hyperplasia.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive neoplasm associated with asbestos exposure. Currently, the molecular mechanisms that induce MPM development are still unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify new molecular biomarkers for mesothelial carcinogenesis. METHODS: We analyzed a panel of 84 genes involved in extracellular matrix remodeling and cell adhesion by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) array in 15 samples of epithelioid mesothelioma and 10 samples of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (MH; 3 of 25 samples were inadequate for mRNA analysis). To validate the differentially expressed genes identified by PCR array, we analyzed 27 more samples by immunohistochemistry, in addition to the 25 samples already studied. RESULTS: Twenty-five genes were differentially expressed in MPM and MH by PCR array. Of these we studied matrix metalloproteinase 7 (MMP7), MMP14, CD44, and integrin, alpha3 expression by immunohistochemistry in 26 epithelioid MPM and 26 MH samples from the entire series of 52 cases. We observed higher MMP14 and integrin, alpha3 expression in MPM samples compared with MH samples (p = 0.000002 and p = 0.000002, respectively). Conversely, CD44 expression was low in most (57.7%) mesothelioma samples but only in 11.5% of the MH samples (p = 0.0013). As regards MMP7, we did not observe differential expression between MH and MPM samples. CONCLUSIONS: We have extensively studied genes involved in cell adhesion and extracellular matrix remodeling in MPM and MH samples, gaining new insight into the pathophysiology of mesothelioma. Moreover, our data suggest that these factors could be potential biomarkers for MPM.