Library

Notes: Malignant epithelioid mesothelioma: anti-mesothelial marker expression correlates with histological pattern Aims: Malignant epithelioid mesothelioma shows marked cytoarchitectural diversity. The aim of the study was to evaluate how immunoreactivity with mesothelial markers related to histological pattern. Methods and results: Ninety-two cases of malignant epithelioid mesothelioma (60 pleural, 32 peritoneal) were examined and classified as exhibiting tubulopapillary, adenomatoid, solid, small cell or pleomorphic patterns. All cases were immunohistochemically stained with thrombomodulin, calretinin, CD44H, and cytokeratin 5/6. Cases of malignant mesothelioma exhibited a number of different histological forms. Immunohistochemical expression of each mesothelial marker tested was not homogeneous across different histological patterns of malignant epithelioid mesothelioma, even within the same tumour section. Calretinin (with nuclear expression) was identified to show the highest overall sensitivity and lowest range variation in staining (67% sensitivity in small cell areas to 100% expression in pleomorphic areas). Cytokeratin 5/6 and thrombomodulin yielded similar overall sensitivity. Thrombomodulin appeared to demonstrate higher sensitivity for small cell variant tumour (83% sensitivity). A notable advantage with cytokeratin 5/6 was that expression was more diffuse in nature rather than the focal membranous elaboration seen in thrombomodulin. The widest range of staining was seen in small cell mesothelioma (83% sensitivity with thrombomodulin to 17% sensitivity with cytokeratin 5/6) and in tubulopapillary areas (90% sensitivity with calretinin to 38% sensitivity with CD44H). Conclusions: Calretinin appears most useful and shows the highest overall sensitivity for malignant epithelioid mesothelioma, with good expression in areas displaying a tubulopapillary, adenomatoid, solid and pleomorphic pattern. For small cell mesothelioma, thrombomodulin appears to confer higher sensitivity and is advocated, in this setting, as the first line mesothelial marker. Cytokeratin 5/6 is a useful and easily interpretable mesothelial marker. CD44H is not of particular use in the diagnosis of malignant epithelioid mesothelioma. Accurate interpretation of immunohistochemistry in mesothelioma requires an awareness of the immunophenotypic heterogeneity identified in different histological forms of the tumour, and this is of particular importance in small biopsies.

Notes: AimsTo undertake a comparative evaluation of three antimesothelial markers (thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6 and calretinin) with broad spectrum cytokeratin (AE1/AE3) in differentiating between sarcomatoid mesothelioma and a spectrum of spindle cell neoplasms.Methods and resultsThirty-one malignant sarcomatoid mesotheliomas were studied. Calretinin expression was focally identified in 12 (39%) tumours and thrombomodulin and cytokeratin 5/6 immunoreactivity was seen in nine (29%) cases. In comparison there was strong diffuse cytoplasmic reactivity with the broad spectrum cytokeratin (AE1/AE3) in 24 of 31 (77%) tumours. Thirty mixed spindle cells neoplasms were studied. No calretinin expression was identified in any case. Thrombomodulin immunoreactivity was identified in four (16%) cases (two angiosarcomas, two high-grade sarcomas, not otherwise specified). Cytokeratin 5/6 expression was seen in one high-grade pulmonary sarcoma originally termed malignant fibrous histiocytoma. None of the antimesothelial markers was expressed in the four spindle cell carcinomas studied. In contrast, broad spectrum cytokeratin was diffusely expressed in all four spindle cell carcinomas (three pulmonary, one renal), both synovial sarcomas, both malignant mixed Müllerian tumours, one of three pulmonary leiomyosarcomas and two of nine sarcomas, not otherwise specified.ConclusionsImmunohistochemistry has a more limited role in the diagnosis and distinction of sarcomatoid mesothelioma from other spindle cell neoplasms. The combination of a broad spectrum cytokeratin with calretinin combines both high sensitivity (77% for AE1/AE3) with high specificity (100% for calretinin) for sarcomatoid mesothelioma and can be diagnostically useful. The mesothelial markers, thrombomodulin and cytokeratin 5/6, are not useful alone in the diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma as each shows insufficient antibody sensitivity, although together they complement calretinin.

Notes: Value of mesothelial and epithelial antibodies in distinguishing diffuse peritoneal mesothelioma in females from serous papillary carcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum Aims: To evaluate the role of mesothelial markers (calretinin, thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6, and CD44H) and carcinoma markers (polyclonal and monoclonal carcinoembryonic antigen, Leu-M1, CA-125 and Ber-EP4) in distinguishing diffuse peritoneal malignant mesothelioma from primary serous papillary adenocarcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum. Methods and results: Paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed blocks from 32 diffuse peritoneal mesotheliomas of epithelial subtype (all females), 20 serous papillary ovarian carcinomas and three primary peritoneal serous papillary carcinomas were studied. Calretinin and Ber-EP4 appeared to be the best positive mesothelial and carcinoma marker, respectively. Nuclear calretinin expression was identified in 28 of 32 malignant mesotheliomas with no nuclear immunoreactivity in the cohorts of serous papillary ovarian and peritoneal carcinomas, thus yielding 88% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Ber-EP4 showed 95% sensitivity and 91% specificity for serous papillary ovarian carcin- oma. Thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6 and CD44H immunoreactivities were seen in 18 (56%), 17 (53%) and 15 (47%) of peritoneal mesotheliomas, respectively, and in six (30%), five (25%) and five (25%) of the ovarian tumours, respectively. None of the three primary peritoneal serous papillary carcinomas expressed calretinin, thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6 or CD44H. Polyclonal and monoclonal CEA, and Leu-M1 were expressed by two (10%), one (5%) and seven (35%) serous papillary ovarian carcinomas, respectively. None of the serous papillary peritoneal carcinomas expressed polyclonal CEA, monoclonal CEA or Leu-M1. CA-125 was positive in 19 (95%) and two (67%) ovarian and peritoneal carcinomas, respectively, and in eight (25%) peritoneal mesotheliomas. Conclusions: Calretinin and Ber-EP4 are useful discriminant markers in distinguishing peritoneal mesothelioma in women from serous papillary ovarian and peritoneal carcinoma. The other mesothelial markers (thrombomodulin, cytokeratin 5/6, and CD44H) and carcinoma markers (polyclonal and monoclonal CEA, and Leu-M1) yielded a too low sensitivity for practical use.

Notes: Aims:  To illustrate the macroscopic, light microscopic and immunophenotypic similarities that exist between primary pleural thymic epithelial tumours and diffuse malignant mesothelioma. To investigate the expression of the mesothelial markers, cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, calretinin and thrombomodulin in a series of mediastinal thymic epithelial tumours.Methods and results:  Over a 10-year period, 64 diffuse pleural tumours of non-mesothelial histogenesis were identified in the files of referrals to the South Wales regional thoracic centre (Llandough Hospital, Cardiff). Of these, five pleural tumours were diagnosed as primary pleural thymic epithelial neoplasms. From the files of the Mesopath group, Caen, three additional cases of thymic epithelial tumours with pleural involvement were identified. The study group comprised eight cases (four males, four females) with median age at presentation of 56 years (range 19–75 years). In one case there was a history of asbestos exposure. Macroscopically, seven tumours formed diffuse pleural masses. No mediastinal abnormality or intraparenchymal lesions were seen in five cases. By light microscopy, seven thymic epithelial neoplasms showed a lobulated architecture, one appeared extensively cystic. The tumours were of varied morphological subtypes: one medullary (WHO Type A), two mixed (WHO Type AB), three predominantly cortical (WHO Type B1) and two cortical (WHO Type B1). The subtypes morphologically mimicked sarcomatoid, biphasic, lymphohistiocytoid variant and epithelioid mesothelioma. The pleural thymic epithelial tumours showed immunoreactivity with broad spectrum cytokeratin AE1/AE3 (8/8; 100%), CK5/6 (8/8; 100%), and 1/8 (13%) expressed thrombomodulin. Calretinin showed variable nuclear and cytoplasmic expression in all cases, but equivocally in the thymic epithelial cell component. In 7/8 (88%) the thymic epithelial cells exhibited focal aberrant expression of CD20. Epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) showed focal expression in the perivascular and organoid areas in 6/8 (75%) cases. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CD34 were uniformly negative. In 4/8 (50%) cases the lymphoid cell component was of immature phenotype expressing CD99, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) and lymphoid precursors had a high proliferation fraction with Ki67. In the series of 20 primary mediastinal thymic epithelial tumours tested, mesothelial marker expression revealed CK5/6 (20/20), thrombomodulin (3/20; 15%) and calretinin (0/20; 0%). Varying amounts of calretinin-positive stromal cells were present.Conclusion:  Primary pleural thymic epithelial tumours are rare but may mimic malignant mesothelioma by forming diffuse serosal-based masses. In addition, both tumours may show morphological diversity (with epithelial, spindled and mixed components present). An awareness that thymic epithelial tumours may variably express the mesothelial markers CK5/6, calretinin and thrombomodulin prevents misdiagnosis. In the distinction from malignant mesothelioma a lobulated architecture and organoid features favour a thymic epithelial neoplasm. The presence of aberrant CD20 expression in a cytokeratin-positive epithelial neoplasm and/or the presence of an immature lymphoid population (by demonstration of CD1a, CD2, CD99 and TdT) indicates a thymic epithelial neoplasm. In contrast, nuclear calretinin expression favours malignant mesothelioma.