Search

Primary pericardial mesothelioma (PPM) has no accepted standard-of-care treatment options with management and outcomes often extrapolated from diffuse pleural mesothelioma. Disease-specific research is needed to better define PPM. We report our institutional experience with PPM highlighting the potential role for multimodality therapy.Patients with PPM diagnosed by a multidisciplinary team of medical oncologists, thoracic surgeons, thoracic pathologists, and radiologists between January 2011 and January 2022 were followed to February 2022. Clinicopathologic features and treatment outcomes were annotated. Overall survival (OS) was defined from the date of pathologic diagnosis.The median age at diagnosis of the 12 patients identified with having PPM was 51 (range: 21-71) years old. Most patients were of female sex (n = 8; 67%), 75% of the samples were epithelioid (n = 9), and 25% were nonepithelioid (two sarcomatoid and one biphasic). Most cases (92%, 11 of 12) had expression of at least two mesothelial markers on immunohistochemistry. The median OS of the cohort was 25.9 months. Five patients had an OS greater than 12 months; four of whom received pericardial radiation. Three of the patients who received radiation did so as part of a trimodality approach (surgical resection, adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiation); the OS for patients who received trimodality therapy was 70.3 months versus 8.2 months for those who did not.PPM represents a distinct disease with no universally accepted treatment options. Our findings suggest that trimodality therapy may improve outcomes in selected patients with PPM.

Background Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is clinically distinct and less studied than malignant pleural mesothelioma. We report the genomic and immunophenotypic features of a prospectively collected MPeM cohort. Methods Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on MPeM tumors. Genomic near-haploidization (GNH) was assessed. WT1, BAP1, mesothelin, VISTA, and PD-L1 were examined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) when tissue was available. Overall survival (OS) was stratified by selected genomic and IHC features. Results Fifty consented patients with MPeM (45 epithelioid, 5 non-epithelioid) demonstrated common alterations in BAP1 (60%; 30/50), NF2 (24%; 12/50) SETD2 (22%; 11/50), and TP53 (16%; 8/50). Seventy-six percent (38/50) of specimens were evaluable for allele-specific copy number analysis; 8% (3/38) had GNH. IHC positivity rates were 93% (37/40) for mesothelin, 96% (46/48) for WT1, 50% (19/38) for PD-L1 and 89% (34/38) for VISTA. BAP1 loss by IHC was observed in 76% (29/38), including five wildtype on NGS. Combining NGS and IHC for BAP1, OS was worse with alteration/loss compared to wildtype/retained in all patients (n=37 vs. 13, 43.8 vs. 117.3 months; p=0.04) Three of thirty patients had a pathogenic germline variant: POT1 I78T, MUTYH R109Y, BAP1 E402*. Conclusion MPeM has a distinct biology and genomic composition. CDKN2A/B alterations were rare in MPeM while BAP1, NF2, TP53, SETD2, LATS2 were common. BAP1 alteration/loss was associated with shorter survival when all patients were included. A notable minority of specimens had GNH associated with NF2, TP53, and SETDB1 mutations. Pathogenic germline mutations were found in 3 of 30 patients.

Introduction: Highly aggressive thoracic neoplasms characterized by SMARCA4 (BRG1) deficiency and undifferentiated round cell or rhabdoid morphology have been recently described and proposed to represent thoracic sarcomas. However, it remains unclear whether such tumors may instead represent sarcomatoid carcinomas, and how their clinicopathologic characteristics compare with those of nonsarcomatoid SMARCA4-deficient non–small cell lung carcinomas (SD-NSCC). Methods: We identified 22 SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcomatoid tumors (SD-TSTs) with round cell and/or rhabdoid morphology and 45 SD-NSCCs, and comprehensively analyzed their clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and genomic characteristics using 341–468 gene next-generation sequencing and other molecular platforms. Results: The relationship of SD-TSTs with NSCC was supported by (1) the presence of NSCC components juxtaposed with sarcomatoid areas in five cases, (2) focal expression of NSCC lineage markers TTF1 or p40 in four additional cases, (3) smoking history in all except one patient (mean = 51 pack-years), accompanied by genomic smoking signature, and (4) high tumor mutation burden (mean = 14.2 mutations per megabase) and mutations characteristic of NSCC in a subset. Compared with SD-NSCCs, SD-TSTs exhibited considerably larger primary tumor size (p < 0.0001), worse survival (p = 0.004), and more frequent presentation at younger age (30–50 years) despite heavier smoking history. Distinctive pathologic features of SD-TSTs included consistent lack of adhesion molecule claudin-4, SMARCA2 (BRM) codeficiency, and frequent expression of stem cell markers. Conclusions: SD-TSTs represent primarily smoking-associated undifferentiated/de-differentiated carcinomas rather than primary thoracic sarcomas. Despite their histogenetic relationship with NSCC, these tumors have unique clinicopathologic characteristics, supporting their recognition as a distinct entity. Further studies are warranted to determine therapeutic approaches to this novel class of exceptionally aggressive thoracic tumors.

INTRODUCTION: The 2015 WHO classification of tumors categorized malignant mesothelioma into epithelioid, biphasic (BMM), and sarcomatoid (SMM) for prognostic relevance and treatment decisions. The survival of BMM is suspected to correlate with the amount of the sarcomatoid component. The criteria for a sarcomatoid component and the interobserver variability between pathologists for identifying this component are not well described. In ambiguous cases, a “transitional” (TMM) subtype has been proposed but was not accepted as a specific subtype in the 2015 WHO classification. The aims of this study were to evaluate the interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of BMM, to determine the nature and the significance of TMM subtype, and to relate the percentage of sarcomatoid component with survival. The value of staining for BRCA-1-associated protein (BAP1) and CDKN2A(p16) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were also assessed with respect to each of the tumoral components. METHODS: The study was conducted by the International Mesothelioma Panel supported by the French National Cancer Institute, the network of rare cancer (EURACAN) and in collaboration with the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The patient cases include a random group of 42 surgical biopsy samples diagnosed as BMM with evaluation of SMM component by the French Panel of MESOPATH experts was selected from the total series of 971 BMM cases collected from 1998 to 2016. Fourteen international pathologists with expertise in mesothelioma reviewed digitally scanned slides (hematoxylin and eosin – stained and pan-cytokeratin) without knowledge of prior diagnosis or outcome. Cases with at least 7 of 14 pathologists recognizing TMM features were selected as a TMM group. Demographic, clinical, histopathologic, treatment, and follow-up data were retrieved from the MESOBANK database. BAP1 (clone C-4) loss and CDKN2A(p16) homozygous deletion (HD) were assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and FISH, respectively. Kappa statistics were applied for interobserver agreement and multivariate analysis with Cox regression adjusted for age and gender was performed for survival analysis. RESULTS: The 14 panelists recorded a total of 544 diagnoses. The interobserver correlation was moderate (weighted Kappa = 0.45). Of the cases originally classified as BMM by MESOPATH, the reviewers agreed in 71% of cases (385 of 544 opinions), with cases classified as pure epithelioid in 17% (93 of 544), and pure sarcomatoid in 12% (66 of 544 opinions). Diagnosis of BMM was made on morphology or IHC alone in 23% of the cases and with additional assessment of IHC in 77% (402 of 544). The median overall survival (OS) of the 42 BMM cases was 8 months. The OS for BMM was significantly different from SMM and epithelioid malignant mesothelioma (p < 0.0001). In BMM, a sarcomatoid component of less than 80% correlated with a better survival (p = 0.02). There was a signicant difference in survival between BMM with TMM showing a median survival at 6 months compared to 12 months for those without TMM (p < 0.0001). BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 42) of the total cases and in both components in 26%. We also compared the TMM group to that of more aggressive patterns of epithelioid subtypes of mesothelioma (solid and pleomorphic of our large MESOPATH cohort). The curve of transitional type was persistently close to the OS curve of the sarcomatoid component. The group of sarcomatoid, transitional, and pleomorphic mesothelioma were very close to each other. We then considered the contribution of BAP1 immunostaining and loss of CDKN2A(p16) by FISH. BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 41) of the total cases and in both component in 27% of the cases (11 of 41). There was no significant difference in BAP1 loss between the TMM and non-TMM groups. HD CDKN2A(p16) was detected in 74% of the total cases with no significant difference between the TMM and non-TMM groups. In multivariate analysis, TMM morphology was an indicator of poor prognosis with a hazard ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.6 – 8.0; and p = 0.003 even when compared to the presence of HD CDKN2A(p16) on sarcomatoid component (hazard ratio = 4.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 – 16.3, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver concordance among the international mesothelioma and French mesothelioma panel suggests clinical utility for an updated definition of biphasic mesothelioma that allows better stratification of patients into risk groups for treatment decisions, systemic anticancer therapy, or selection for surgery or palliation. We also have shown the usefulness of FISH detection of CDKN2A(p16) HD compared to BAP1 loss on the spindle cell component for the separation in ambiguous cases between benign florid stromal reaction from true sarcomatoid component of biphasic mesothelioma. Taken together our results further validate the concept of transitional pattern as a poor prognostic indicator.

High PD-L1 expression (≥50%) is a routine biomarker but is incompletely predictive, with response rates to PD-1 monotherapy only 35-45% in patients with lung cancer. Beyond PD-L1, additional individual pre-treatment variables, including clinical (smoking history, BMI), genomic (TMB, STK11, EGFR), and laboratory features (baseline dNLR), individually associate with response but have not been comprehensively examined in combination. We hypothesized that a multifactorial model incorporating routinely available clinical, pathologic, and genomic variables could improve prediction of response in high PD-L1 patients receiving first line anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy.