Diagnostic Usefulness of p16/CDKN2A FISH in Distinguishing Between Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma and Fibrous Pleuritis

Dept of Pathology, Tokyo Women's Medical University Yachiyo Medical Center, 477-96 Owada-Shinden, Yachiyo, Chiba 276-8524, Japan.
American Journal of Clinical Pathology (Impact Factor: 3.01). 01/2013; 139(1):39-46. DOI: 10.1309/AJCPT94JVWIHBKRD
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The distinction between sarcomatoid mesothelioma and fibrous pleuritis is difficult based on histology, especially when the amount of tumor tissue examined via biopsy is small and immunohistochemical examination is inconclusive. We studied the usefulness of deletion of p16 with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and p16 hypermethylation with polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis and prognosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We analyzed 50 MPMs, including 22 sarcomatoid mesothelioma cases and 10 fibrous pleuritis cases. We set the cutoff value of homozygous deletion pattern as 14.4% based on FISH signaling patterns using samples of fibrous pleuritis. The percentage of homozygous deletion pattern was higher than 14.4% in 55.6% of the epithelioid mesotheliomas (10/18) and in all of the sarcomatoid mesotheliomas (22/22). Methylation of p16 was observed in 7 (20.6%) of 34 informative cases. p16 FISH analysis can be a reliable test for distinguishing between sarcomatoid mesothelioma and fibrous pleuritis and a prognostic factor for MPM.

Download full-text


Available from: Hideaki Shimada, Jun 23, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The differentiation of malignant mesotheliomas and benign mesothelial proliferations is crucial in determining patient care and prognosis. But, this distinction can be extremely difficult, particularly in small biopsies. Recently, insulin-like growth factor II mRNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3) and glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) have been reported as specific and sensitive markers in the distinction of mesotheliomas from benign mesothelial proliferations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of IMP3, GLUT-1, and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) immunohistochemistry for distinguishing mesotheliomas from benign mesothelial proliferations. Immunoexpression of IMP3, GLUT-1, and EMA was evaluated in 88 malignant mesotheliomas, 35 adenomatoid tumors, and 20 benign lung tissues with reactive mesothelial cells. The sensitivity for IMP3, GLUT-1, and EMA was 37%, 21%, and 41%, respectively. The specificity for IMP3, GLUT-1, and EMA was 100%. When IMP3, GLUT1, and EMA combined, the sensitivity was 66% for IMP3/EMA staining, 53% for GLUT-1/EMA staining, and 45% for IMP3/GLUT-1. Use of IMP3 and EMA together is more helpful to distinguish malignant mesotheliomas from benign mesothelial proliferations than the use of IMP3 or EMA alone.
    Pathology International 12/2014; 64(12). DOI:10.1111/pin.12216 · 1.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a neoplastic disease with a poor prognosis. The complete resection of tumor with extra-pleural pneumonectomy is effective only for early stage epithelioid-type MPM. An accurate pathological diagnosis including the histological subtype and also clinical staging are crucial to decide on the therapeutic approach. However, the pathological diagnosis is difficult when the amount of biopsy sample is small. We performed a comparative analysis of the miR-31 expression in MPM and reactive mesothelial proliferations (RMPs), by RT-qPCR of formaldehyde-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, and compared the expression levels of miR-31 with the results of a survival analysis for the diagnosis and prognosis of MPM. The expression of miR-31 was found to be significantly reduced in MPMs compared with RMPs (P < 0.01). The pathological subtype of four among five cases with upregulated miR-31 levels was MPM with a sarcomatoid component. (i.e., biphasic or sarcomatoid type). Furthermore, these four cases were significantly associated with a worse prognosis compared with the five cases of biphasic or sarcomatoid MPM without upregulated miR-31 expression (P = 0.0027). In conclusion, the analysis of miR-31 expression levels may be a good biomarker for diagnosis of MPM histological typing and predicting the prognosis.
    Medical Oncology 12/2014; 31(12):303. DOI:10.1007/s12032-014-0303-2 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An atypical mesothelial proliferation along the pleural or peritoneal surface without evidence of invasive tumor poses a diagnostic challenge. Homozygous deletion of p16 (CDKN2A) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been shown to be a good marker of malignancy in mesothelial proliferations, but correlations of p16 status between atypical surface proliferations and underlying mesothelioma have not been described. We used p16 FISH to investigate 11 pleural and 7 peritoneal mesotheliomas that had both an invasive component and a separate surface mesothelial proliferation. In 5/11 pleural samples and 1/7 peritoneal samples, the invasive mesotheliomas showed homozygous deletion of p16 (all cases in excess of 90% of cells deleted); the surface proliferation in all 6 cases with deletion in the invasive tumor was also p16 deleted. Conversely, the 12 tumors that did not show p16 deletion in the invasive compartment also did not have deletion in the surface component. We conclude that (1) surface mesothelial proliferations near invasive mesotheliomas show the same pattern of p16 by FISH as the underlying tumor and may represent in situ disease or growth of the underlying mesothelioma along the serosal surface; (2) p16 deletion in mesothelial surface proliferations is strongly associated with p16 deletion in underlying mesotheliomas, and biopsies consisting of pure surface mesothelial proliferations that are p16 deleted allow a diagnosis of mesothelioma without an additional biopsy if there is clinical (thoracosopic/laparoscopic) or radiologic evidence of diffuse pleural or peritoneal tumor; (3) however, the absence of p16 deletion in surface proliferations does not rule out underlying invasive mesothelioma.
    The American journal of surgical pathology 02/2014; 38(5). DOI:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000176 · 4.59 Impact Factor