Search

Background: The distinction between mesothelioma with epithelioid features and metastatic carcinoma may be challenging, particularly on cytology. A novel 2‐hit Claudin‐4 and BRCA‐associated protein 1 (BAP1) panel was investigated. Methods: The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the panel on cytology from pleural effusions and matched biopsies, including 49 malignant mesotheliomas on cytology with 43 matched biopsies, 49 normal/reactive mesothelial proliferations, and 49 pleural metastatic carcinomas from different primaries with 21 matched pleural biopsies. The diagnostic role of the 4 categories obtained by crossing the immunostaining results was analyzed. Results: Claudin‐4 strongly stained all metastatic carcinomas and tested completely negative in normal mesothelium, benign reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, and malignant mesothelioma. All normal and benign mesothelial proliferations and all carcinomas except 1 were immunoreactive for BAP1, whereas BAP1 loss was observed in 88% of malignant mesotheliomas. The expression of Claudin‐4 alone excluded all benign and malignant mesothelial growth, consistently characterizing all metastatic carcinomas. Double negativity was evident in all malignant mesotheliomas, and double positivity was observed in all metastatic carcinomas. BAP1‐positive/Claudin‐4–negative status was observed only in malignant mesotheliomas and benign mesothelial proliferations. A single metastatic anal squamous cell carcinoma had BAP1‐negative/Claudin‐4–positive staining. Conclusions: Claudin‐4 expression was completely specific and sensitive for metastatic carcinoma, excluding mesothelial proliferations. BAP1 staining characterized 98% of metastatic carcinomas and 100% of benign mesothelial proliferations, whereas negativity was observed almost exclusively in mesotheliomas. This 2‐hit panel is probably the best compromise for differentiating malignant mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma on either cytology or biopsy specimens. Claudin‐4 expression in effusion cytology is completely specific and sensitive for metastatic carcinoma, excluding mesothelial proliferations; otherwise, BRCA1‐associated protein 1 (BAP1) staining characterizes 98% of metastatic carcinomas and 100% of benign mesothelial proliferations, whereas negativity is almost exclusively disclosed in mesothelioma. This 2‐hit Claudin‐4/BAP1 panel is probably the best compromise in differentiating malignant mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma on either cytology or biopsy specimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The separation of benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations on effusion cytology can be difficult. Loss of methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) by immunohistochemistry is an established marker of malignancy in mesothelial proliferations, but to the authors' knowledge largely has been applied only to biopsies. The current study was conducted to determine the usefulness of MTAP immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in effusion cytology specimens. Methods: A total of 21 effusion cytology cases of malignant mesothelioma were stained for MTAP and BRCA‐associated protein 1 (BAP1), with 15 reactive mesothelial cytology cases used as a control. Fourteen cases had a paired surgical specimen for comparison, and 7 cases were run for CDKN2A deletion by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Results: Complete loss of MTAP cytoplasmic staining was noted in 7 of 21 effusion samples (33%), and no loss was observed in 11 effusion samples (52%); 11 of these cases had a matching surgical specimen and all 11 specimens demonstrated the same MTAP pattern. Partial loss was observed in 3 effusion specimens (80%, 40%, and 40% intact staining, respectively), but in all 3 the surgical specimen demonstrated 100% staining. None of the 15 reactive mesothelial cytology specimens demonstrated MTAP cytoplasmic loss. CDKN2A FISH demonstrated concordance in 5 of 7 cases (71%). MTAP immunohistochemistry had a sensitivity of 33% and a specificity of 100% for this differential diagnosis. Conclusions: MTAP staining demonstrated generally good concordance between the cytologic and surgical specimens and appears to be useful in the diagnosis of mesothelioma on effusion specimens. Complete loss of MTAP is a reliable marker of malignancy, but the significance of partial loss of MTAP staining is unclear. Methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) staining on cytologic specimens demonstrates excellent agreement with the surgical specimen in the majority of cases and is useful for separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations when there is complete loss of MTAP staining. Some cases demonstrate only a partial loss of MTAP staining and therefore are not diagnostic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]