A Pilot Validation Study Comparing Fluorescence-Imitating Brightfield Imaging, A Slide-Free Imaging Method, With Standard Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Hematoxylin-Eosin-Stained Tissue Section Histology for Primary Surgical Pathology Diagnosis.

CONTEXT.­: Digital pathology using whole slide images has been recently approved to support primary diagnosis in clinical surgical pathology practices. Here we describe a novel imaging method, fluorescence-imitating brightfield imaging, that can capture the surface of fresh tissue without requiring prior fixation, paraffin embedding, tissue sectioning, or staining. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare the ability of pathologists to evaluate direct-to-digital images with standard pathology preparations. DESIGN.­: One hundred surgical pathology samples were obtained. Samples were first digitally imaged, then processed for standard histologic examination on 4-µm hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections and digitally scanned. The resulting digital images from both digital and standard scan sets were viewed by each of 4 reading pathologists. The data set consisted of 100 reference diagnoses and 800 study pathologist reads. Each study read was compared to the reference diagnosis, and also compared to that reader's diagnosis across both modalities. RESULTS.­: The overall agreement rate, across 800 reads, was 97.9%. This consisted of 400 digital reads at 97.0% versus reference and 400 standard reads versus reference at 98.8%. Minor discordances (defined as alternative diagnoses without clinical treatment or outcome implications) were 6.1% overall, 7.2% for digital, and 5.0% for standard. CONCLUSIONS.­: Pathologists can provide accurate diagnoses from fluorescence-imitating brightfield imaging slide-free images. Concordance and discordance rates are similar to published rates for comparisons of whole slide imaging to standard light microscopy of glass slides for primary diagnosis. It may be possible, therefore, to develop a slide-free, nondestructive approach for primary pathology diagnosis.

The Biomarker Ki-67: Promise, Potential, and Problems in Breast Cancer.

Ki-67 is a nuclear protein serendipitously discovered by monoclonal antibody selection in the early 1980s. While it has been applied for decades in the context of breast cancer as a putative prognostic and, more recently, predictive, biomarker, even after all this time there is incomplete agreement as to the validity of the immunohistochemical assays employed for Ki-67 assessment, given possible effects of the disparate methodologies employed and possible confounding preanalytical, analytical, and interpretive variables. In this brief review, the history of Ki-67 and the problems, particularly with the analytical and interpretive variables, are highlighted through a selective review of the published literature. The contributions of the International Ki-67 Breast Cancer Working Group are highlighted, and in particular, the recommendations made by this group are reviewed. The potential of Ki-67 as a biomarker for breast cancer has not yet been fully realized, but an understanding of the power as well as the limitations of the methods of Ki-67 assessment are important if this biomarker can realize its potential.

Systematically higher Ki67 scores on core biopsy samples compared to corresponding resection specimen in breast cancer: a multi-operator and multi-institutional study.

Ki67 has potential clinical importance in breast cancer but has yet to see broad acceptance due to inter-laboratory variability. Here we tested an open source and calibrated automated digital image analysis (DIA) platform to: (i) investigate the comparability of Ki67 measurement across corresponding core biopsy and resection specimen cases, and (ii) assess section to section differences in Ki67 scoring. Two sets of 60 previously stained slides containing 30 core-cut biopsy and 30 corresponding resection specimens from 30 estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients were sent to 17 participating labs for automated assessment of average Ki67 expression. The blocks were centrally cut and immunohistochemically (IHC) stained for Ki67 (MIB-1 antibody). The QuPath platform was used to evaluate tumoral Ki67 expression. Calibration of the DIA method was performed as in published studies. A guideline for building an automated Ki67 scoring algorithm was sent to participating labs. Very high correlation and no systematic error (p = 0.08) was found between consecutive Ki67 IHC sections. Ki67 scores were higher for core biopsy slides compared to paired whole sections from resections (p ≤ 0.001; median difference: 5.31%). The systematic discrepancy between core biopsy and corresponding whole sections was likely due to pre-analytical factors (tissue handling, fixation). Therefore, Ki67 IHC should be tested on core biopsy samples to best reflect the biological status of the tumor.

Phosphorylated transducer and activator of transcription-3 (pSTAT3) immunohistochemical expression in paired primary and metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription-3 (STAT3) mediates cellular functions. We assessed the IHC expression of phosphorylated STAT3 (pSTAT3) in paired primary tumors and liver metastases in patients with advanced stage colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: We included patients with tissue blocks available from both the primary CRC and a surgically resected liver metastasis. The IHC pSTAT3 expression agreement was measured using Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS: The study included 103 patients, 55% male, median age was 64. 43% tumors originated in rectum, and 63% of the primary tumors were synchronous. Expression of pSTAT3 was 76% in liver metastases and 71% in primary tumors. A difference in pSTAT3 staining between the primary tumor and liver metastases was noted in 64%. There was lost expression of pSTAT3 in the liver metastases in 28% and gained expression in 36% of cases compared to the primary. The kappa statistic comparing agreement between staining patterns of the primary tumors and liver metastases was a "less-than-chance", at -0.02. Median survival was 4.9 years, with no difference in survival outcomes by pSTAT3 expression in the primary tumor or liver metastases. DISCUSSION: STAT3 is not a prognostic marker in the selective setting of metastatic CRC to liver, but it may remain a potential therapeutic target given most liver metastases expressed pSTAT3. Discordant pSTAT3 expression in between primary tumors and paired liver metastases suggests that use of this class of drug to treat liver predominant metastatic colorectal cancer in a biomarker-driven approach may require confirmatory liver tumor biopsy.

Quantitative assessment of PD-L1 as an analyte in immunohistochemistry diagnostic assays using a standardized cell line tissue microarray.

Programmed death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the key FDA-approved predictive marker to identify responders to anti-PD1 axis drugs. Multiple PD-L1 IHC assays with various antibodies and cut points have been used in clinical trials across tumor types. Comparative performance characteristics of these assays have been extensively studied qualitatively but not quantitatively. Here we evaluate the use of a standardized PD-L1 Index tissue microarray (TMA) to objectively determine agreement between antibody assays for PD-L1 applying quantitative digital image analysis. Using a specially constructed Index TMA containing a panel of ten isogenic cell lines in triplicate, we tested identical but independently grown batches of isogenic cells to prove Index TMAs can be produced in large quantities and hence serve as a standardization tool. Then the Index TMAs were evaluated using quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF) to validate the TMA itself and also to compare antibodies including E1L3N, SP142 and SP263. Next, an inter-laboratory and inter-assay comparison of 5 PD-L1 chromogenic IHC assays (US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved and lab developed test (LDT)) were performed at 12 sites around the USA. As previously reported, the SP142 FDA assay failed to detect low levels of PD-L1 in cell lines distinguished by the other four assays. The assays for 22C3 FDA, 28-8-FDA, SP263 FDA, and E1L3N LDT were highly similar across sites and all laboratories showed a high consistency over time for all assays using this Index TMA. In conclusion, we were able to objectively quantify PD-L1 expression on a standardized Index TMA using digital image analysis and we confirmed previous subjective assessments of these assays, but now in a multi-institutional setting. We envision commercial use of this Index TMA or similar smaller version as a useful standardization mechanism to compare results between institutions and to identify abnormalities while running routine clinical samples.

SATB2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry is a sensitive and specific marker of appendiceal and rectosigmoid well differentiated neuroendocrine tumours.

AIMS: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NNs) range from well to poorly differentiated and indolent to highly aggressive. The site of origin in metastatic NNs has therapeutic and prognostic implications. SATB2 is a transcriptional regulator involved in osteoblastic and neuronal differentiation and is a sensitive and specific marker of colorectal epithelium. This study aimed to evaluate the expression of SATB2 in NNs from various primary sites and its utility as a marker in determining the site of origin of these neoplasms. METHODS AND RESULTS: SATB2 immunohistochemistry was performed on 266 NNs, including lung small cell carcinomas (n = 39) and carcinoids (n = 30), bladder (n = 21) and prostate (n = 31) small cell carcinomas, and gastrointestinal (GI)/pancreatic NNs of various primary sites (n = 145) consisting of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (WDNET)s (n = 124) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (PDNEC)s (n = 21). SATB2 was expressed in prostatic (10 of 31, 32%) and bladder (eight of 21, 38%) small cell carcinomas, lung carcinoid tumours (one of 30, 3%), and lung small cell carcinomas (eight of 39, 21%). Among primary GI NNs, SATB2 was expressed in 37 of 124 (30%) WDNETs and four of 21 (19%) PDNECs. Of the former, 15 of 15 (100%) rectal/rectosigmoid and 22 of 22 (100%) appendiceal neoplasms expressed SATB2. Using receiver operator characteristic analysis, SATB2 was a sensitive and specific marker for rectal (100.0%, 80.0%) and appendiceal (100.0%, 84.5%) WDNETs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, SATB2 is a sensitive and specific marker for rectal/rectosigmoid and appendiceal WDNETs, and may represent a useful diagnostic tool when these sites of origin are considered in the differential diagnosis.

Analytical validation of a standardised scoring protocol for Ki67 immunohistochemistry on breast cancer excision whole sections: an international multicentre collaboration.

AIMS: The nuclear proliferation marker Ki67 assayed by immunohistochemistry has multiple potential uses in breast cancer, but an unacceptable level of interlaboratory variability has hampered its clinical utility. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group has undertaken a systematic programme to determine whether Ki67 measurement can be analytically validated and standardised among laboratories. This study addresses whether acceptable scoring reproducibility can be achieved on excision whole sections. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adjacent sections from 30 primary ER+ breast cancers were centrally stained for Ki67 and sections were circulated among 23 pathologists in 12 countries. All pathologists scored Ki67 by two methods: (i) global: four fields of 100 tumour cells each were selected to reflect observed heterogeneity in nuclear staining; (ii) hot-spot: the field with highest apparent Ki67 index was selected and up to 500 cells scored. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the global method [confidence interval (CI) = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.799-0.93] marginally met the prespecified success criterion (lower 95% CI ≥ 0.8), while the ICC for the hot-spot method (0.83; 95% CI = 0.74-0.90) did not. Visually, interobserver concordance in location of selected hot-spots varies between cases. The median times for scoring were 9 and 6 min for global and hot-spot methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The global scoring method demonstrates adequate reproducibility to warrant next steps towards evaluation for technical and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of cases. The time taken for scoring by either method is practical using counting software we are making publicly available. Establishment of external quality assessment schemes is likely to improve the reproducibility between laboratories further.

Immunohistochemistry for TFE3 lacks specificity and sensitivity in the diagnosis of TFE3-rearranged neoplasms: a comparative, 2-laboratory study.

TFE3 rearrangements are characteristic of alveolar soft part sarcomas (ASPS), Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinomas (Xp11-RCC), and other rare tumors. Immunohistochemistry for TFE3 protein has been considered by some to be a reliable surrogate for TFE3 molecular studies, although others disagree. We compared 2 methods for TFE3 immunohistochemistry to determine if technical differences underlie these differences. Ninety-eight archival cases of mixed type, 19 ASPS, and 8 Xp11-RCC were stained for TFE3 at Laboratory A and Laboratory B using routine protocols. Positive controls were normal human testis (Laboratory A) and Xp11-RCC (Laboratory B). Nuclear staining was scored as "negative," "1+" (<10%), "2+" (10%-50%), and "3+" (>50%). Intensity was scored as "negative," "weak," "moderate," or "strong." Only moderate-strong, 2+ or 3+ staining was considered positive. Laboratory A results were as follows: archival cases (42 of 98, 43%), ASPS (16 of 19, 84%), and Xp11-RCC (7 of 8, 88%). Laboratory B results were as follows: archival cases (5 of 98, 5%), ASPS (14 of 19, 74%), and Xp11-RCC (5 of 8, 63%). TFE3 fluorescence in situ hybridization was positive in all tested ASPS and Xp11-RCC. The overall sensitivity and specificity of TFE3 immunohistochemistry for TFE3-rearranged neoplasms were 85% (23/27) and 57% (56/98) at Laboratory A and 70% (19/27) and 95% (93/98) at Laboratory B. Technical differences, in particular, the type of control tissue, likely account for these different results. The results of our study and prior studies suggest that TFE3 immunohistochemistry should play only a minor role (if any) in the diagnosis of TFE3-rearranged tumors, with fluorescence in situ hybridization representing the preferred method.

Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma 2017 Update of the Consensus Statement From the International Mesothelioma Interest Group.

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.

Role of SATB2 in distinguishing the site of origin in glandular lesions of the bladder/urinary tract.

The differential diagnosis of glandular lesions of the bladder/urinary tract can be challenging because of significant morphologic and immunohistochemical overlap between primary lesions and metastasis/direct extension from adjacent organs. Special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2 (SATB2), encoded on chromosome 2q32-33, is a recently described DNA-binding protein involved in osteoblast lineage commitment and expressed in colorectal and appendiceal neoplasms. In this study, we hypothesized that immunohistochemistry for SATB2 may be of value in distinguishing primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder/urinary tract and urothelial carcinoma with glandular differentiation from gastrointestinal and endocervical primaries. Intensity and distribution of SATB2 nuclear labeling were semiquantitatively scored and compared with those of CDX2. The study included 43 primary adenocarcinomas of the bladder/urinary tract, 20 urothelial carcinomas with glandular differentiation, 26 adenocarcinomas of the uterine cervix, and 22 colorectal adenocarcinomas involving the bladder. Positive SATB2 immunostaining was observed in 21 of 43 (49%) primary bladder/urinary tract adenocarcinomas, in 17 of 22 (77%) colorectal adenocarcinomas, and in the glandular component of 4 of 18 (22%) urothelial carcinomas with glandular differentiation. SATB2 was negative in 25 of 26 endocervical adenocarcinomas and showed focal weak immunostaining (1+) in 1 of 26 (4%). The results were not significantly different from those seen with CDX2. We conclude that SATB2 immunohistochemistry is not useful in supporting urothelial versus gastrointestinal or endocervical origin in the differential diagnosis of glandular lesions of the bladder/urinary tract.

Investigation of PD-L1 Biomarker Testing Methods for PD-1 Axis Inhibition in Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Inhibitors of the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) signaling axis have recently demonstrated efficacy and are rapidly being incorporated into the treatment of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Despite clear benefits to certain patients, the association of these responses with a predictive biomarker remains uncertain. Several different biomarkers have been proposed, with differing results and conclusions. This study compares multiple methods of biomarker testing for treatment of NSCLCs with PD1-axis inhibitors. Tissue microarrays of matched primary and metastatic NSCLCs were used to compare four different PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) IHC techniques, as well as RNA ISH. Additional cases with whole genome and transcriptome data were assessed for molecular correlates of PD-L1 overexpression. Eighty cases were included in the IHC study. Multiple IHC methodologies showed a high rate of agreement (Kappa = 0.67). When calibrated to RNA expression, agreement improved significantly (Kappa = 0.90, p=0.0049). PD-L1 status of primary and metastatic tumors was discordant in 17 (22%) cases. This study suggests that different IHC methodologies for PD-L1 assessment provide slightly different results. There is significant discordance between the PD-L1 status of primary tumors and lymph node metastases. RNA ISH may be a useful adjunct to complement PD-L1 IHC testing.

Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry: What Can Go Wrong and How to Prevent It.

CONTEXT: -There are a number of critical factors that can lead to incorrect results if the diagnostic pathologist performing immunohistochemistry is unaware of, or not vigilant about, their influence. OBJECTIVE: -To highlight 3 arenas in which errors may be introduced. DATA SOURCES: -For choosing the correct primary antibody, selection of the most appropriate antibodies for a given clinical application can be aided by obtaining information from the vendor; however, this can yield incomplete information. There are a number of online databases that have comparisons of antibodies from different vendors, particularly with respect to their use and properties. Reading the published literature can assist in this process, particularly with respect to determining antibody sensitivity and specificity, but it is a daunting task to keep up with all of the immunohistochemistry-related papers published. Finally, Web sites of a number of quality assurance organizations are accessible and can provide a wealth of information comparing the "real world" performance characteristics of different antibodies to the same target protein. False-positive signals can result from a number of factors, including the use of inappropriately high antibody concentration, and "pseudospecific" signal that is in the wrong compartment of the cell. False-negative signal can result from factors such as use of a nonoptimized epitope retrieval method. It is critical that epitope retrieval methods be optimized for each antibody employed in the laboratory. CONCLUSIONS: -By paying attention to these potential problems, the "black box" of diagnostic immunohistochemistry can be made more transparent.

BAP1 Immunohistochemistry and p16 FISH in the Diagnosis of Sarcomatous and Desmoplastic Mesotheliomas.

The separation of sarcomatous and desmoplastic mesotheliomas from benign organizing pleuritis can be morphologically very difficult. Deletion of p16 (CDKN2A) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing appears to be a reliable marker of malignancy in mesothelial proliferations, and more recently it has been reported that, in this setting, loss of BAP1 by immunohistochemistry is only seen in malignant mesotheliomas. To determine how useful these tests are with sarcomatous and desmoplastic mesotheliomas, we examined 20 such tumors. Loss of BAP1 was seen in 3/20 (15%) and deletion of p16 by FISH was seen in 16/20 (80%) cases. Loss of one or the other marker was observed in 17/20 (85%). We also examined 13 sarcomatoid carcinomas, an important differential diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, and found that BAP1 was never lost, but p16 was deleted in 3/11 (27%). We conclude that: (1) BAP1 immunohistochemistry is relatively insensitive in the context of sarcomatous and desmoplastic mesotheliomas, but as a matter of time and cost efficiency may nonetheless be a useful first approach to the problem; (2) deletion of p16 by FISH is considerably more sensitive, but there remain a proportion of cases in which p16 is not deleted; (3) a small improvement in sensitivity can be achieved by using both markers; (4) in the context of a spindle cell malignant tumor in the pleura or peritoneum, which morphologically might be a metastatic sarcomatoid carcinoma or a mesothelioma, the finding of BAP1 loss favors mesothelioma, but p16 FISH cannot be used to separate sarcomatous mesotheliomas from sarcomatoid carcinomas.

Markers of metastatic carcinoma of breast origin.

This review summarizes the three major breast-associated markers that can be of assistance in evaluating metastatic carcinomas for which a breast primary diagnosis is entertained. These markers include gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15), mammaglobin, and GATA3. The first two are cytoplasmic markers that show comparable sensitivities for breast cancer, although relatively few of the published studies have employed the same antibodies against the target molecule, making direct comparisons challenging. GATA3 is a nuclear transcription factor that shows superior sensitivity to GCDFP-15 and mammaglobin. However, the specificity of GATA3 can pose challenges, inasmuch as carcinomas of the bladder and other sites can show significant levels of positivity. Determination of the optimal panel of antibodies employed in a given clinical setting will thus depend on the non-breast tumours included in the differential diagnosis.

Evaluation of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Gene Status in Human Breast Cancer Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) Tissue Specimens by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH).

Current standard of care requires that HER2 gene testing be performed on all newly diagnosed invasive breast cancers in order to determine eligibility for anti-HER2 antibody therapy and should be performed in accordance with current ASCO-CAP guidelines (Hammond et al., J Clin Oncol 29(15):e458, 2011; Wolff et al., J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997-4013, 2013). Here we describe a HER2 FISH methodology to evaluate HER2 gene status in FFPE breast tumor specimens.

Practical Applications in Immunohistochemistry: Carcinomas of Unknown Primary Site.

CONTEXT: -Identification of the site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary using immunohistochemistry is a frequent requirement of anatomic pathologists. Diagnostic accuracy is crucial, particularly in the current era of targeted therapies and smaller sample sizes. OBJECTIVES: -To provide practical guidance and suggestions for classifying carcinoma of unknown primary using both proven and new antibodies, as well as targeting panels based on integration of morphologic and clinical features. DATA SOURCES: -Literature review, the authors' practice experience, and authors' research. CONCLUSIONS: -With well-performed and interpreted immunohistochemistry panels, anatomic pathologists can successfully identify the site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary. It is crucial to understand not only the diagnostic uses of the many available antibodies but also the potential limits and pitfalls.

Vascular mesangial channels in human nodular diabetic glomerulopathy.

The presence of vascular mesangial channels has been reported in idiopathic nodular glomerulosclerosis and diabetic glomerulopathy. However, only limited information on the morphology and immunohistochemical phenotype of these channels is available. This study aims to describe the light and electron microscopic features of these channels and delineate their immunohistochemical phenotype. Thirty-eight cases of human nodular diabetic glomerulopathy with mesangial channels identified by light microscopy were prospectively selected (2010-2012). The cases were stained with CD31/periodic acid-Schiff combined stain. Selected cases were immunostained for CD34, podoplanin, ERG, and Ki-67. Frequent, small and peripheral vascular mesangial channels were seen in all cases, whereas larger and more centrally located vascular channels were also observed. Communication between peripheral capillary loops and peripheral vascular mesangial channels was seen as was communication between peripheral and central vascular mesangial channels. The vascular mesangial channel lining cells showed a typical endothelial phenotype with strong expression of CD31, CD34, and ERG by immunohistochemistry. The lymphatic channel marker podoplanin was negative in all channels, and the proliferation marker Ki-67 showed no evidence of increased proliferation. By electron microscopy, mesangial channels show angulated, irregular borders with lining cells compatible with endothelium and surrounded by mesangial matrix. No basement membranes were identified surrounding the mesangial channels. These findings support the existence of vascular mesangial channels in nodular diabetic glomerulopathy and suggest neovascularization and altered blood flow within these glomeruli.

Comparative Sensitivities and Specificities of Antibodies to Breast Markers GCDFP-15, Mammaglobin A, and Different Clones of Antibodies to GATA-3: A Study of 338 Tumors Using Whole Sections.

GATA-3 is a transcription factor that has recently been identified by immunohistochemistry to be highly expressed in urothelial and breast carcinomas (CAs). We sought to determine the potential utility of GATA-3 in identifying metastatic breast CA, and to compare its utility with the standard breast markers, GCDFP-15, and mammaglobin A. We identified an archival series of 338 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded whole-tissue sections of various CAs. Using standard immunohistochemical (IHC) techniques we used mouse monoclonal antibodies to GATA-3 (clones L50-823, HG3-31), GCDFP-15 (23A3), and mammaglobin A (31A5). Both clones of GATA-3 showed positivity in 96% of non-triple-negative breast carcinomas (TNBCs), L50-823 and HG3-31, demonstrating expression in 87% and 63% of TNBCs, respectively; GCDFP-15 and mammaglobin A were expressed in 69% and 61% of non-TNBCs, respectively, and 10% and 17%, of TNBCs, respectively. The L50-823 clone manifested a lower specificity in identifying breast CAs (84%) than did the HG3-31 clone (97%). Both monoclonal antibodies to GATA-3 are very sensitive reagents for the identification of breast CA, surpassing antibodies to GCDFP-15 and mammaglobin A, and offer a significant improvement in identifying TNBCs. However, the L50-823 clone showed a lower level of specificity, which may qualify its utility in the setting of CAs of unknown primary.

Utility of BAP1 Immunohistochemistry and p16 (CDKN2A) FISH in the Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma in Effusion Cytology Specimens.

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in effusion cytology specimens is controversial. BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) have recently been reported as reliable markers of malignancy in biopsies of mesothelioma. To determine whether these markers, singly or in combination, might also be useful in effusion cytology specimens, we examined 15 biopsies of epithelial mesotheliomas and 3 benign mesothelial reactions and corresponding effusion cytology paraffin-embedded cell blocks. Four cytology specimens were too scanty for p16 FISH analysis but were interpretable for BAP1 immunohistochemistry. Overall, loss of BAP1 and/or deletion of p16 was seen in 11/11 (100%) of matched cytology and tissue biopsy specimens. BAP1 loss alone was seen in 10/15 (67%) biopsies and 10/15 (67%) cytology specimens. Homozygous deletion of p16 by FISH was found in 12/15 (80%) biopsy specimens and 8/11 (73%) evaluable cytology specimens. Seven of 15 (47%) biopsies and 5/11 (42%) cytology specimens showed loss of both markers. All mesothelioma biopsy/cytology pairs showed exactly the same pattern of BAP1 or p16 retention or loss in the biopsy and cytology specimens. The 2 peritoneal mesothelioma cases demonstrated loss of BAP1 but not p16. None of the benign mesothelial reactions or corresponding cytology specimens showed loss of either marker. We conclude that both BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16 FISH analysis provide reliable markers of mesothelial malignancy in effusion cytology specimens, especially where the atypical mesothelial proliferation is well sampled. BAP1 is easier to interpret with scanty specimens. On the basis of small numbers of cases, use of both markers appears to increase sensitivity.