Sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemical markers used in the diagnosis of epitheloid mesothelioma: A detailed systematic analysis using published data

University Hospital Of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Histopathology (Impact Factor: 3.45). 03/2006; 48(3):223-32. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02331.x
Source: PubMed


Immunohistochemistry is frequently employed to aid the distinction between mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura, but there is uncertainty as to which antibodies are most useful. We analysed published data in order to establish sensitivity and specificity of antibodies used to distinguish between these tumours with a view to defining the most appropriate immunohistochemical panel to use when faced with this diagnostic problem.
A systematic analysis of the results of 88 published papers comparing immunohistochemical staining of a panel of antibodies in mesothelioma with epithelioid areas, and pulmonary adenocarcinoma metastatic to the pleura. Results for a total of 15 antibodies were analysed and expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The most sensitive antibodies for identifying pulmonary adenocarcinoma were MOC-31 and BG8 (both 93%), whilst the most specific were monoclonal CEA (97%) and TTF-1 (100%). The most sensitive antibodies to identify epithelioid mesothelioma were CK5/6 (83%) and HBME-1 (85%). The most specific antibodies were CK5/6 (85%) and WT1 (96%).
No single antibody is able to differentiate reliably between these two tumours. The use of a small panel of antibodies with a high combined sensitivity and specificity is recommended.

33 Reads
  • Source
    • "Efficient high-pH heat induced epitope retrieval (HIER) in combination with a sensitive visualization system is mandatory for optimal performance [19]. Calretinin can mainly be used in the diagnosis of epithelioid MPM, as its expression is diminished in areas with sarcomatous differentiation, and it has limited value in discriminating MM from serous or squamous carcinomas [18] [20]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an asbestos-related cancer with a median survival of 12months. The MPM incidence is 1-6/100,000 and is increasing as a result of historic asbestos exposure in industrialized countries and continued use of asbestos in developing countries. Lack of accurate biomarkers makes diagnosis, prognostication and treatment prediction of MPM challenging. The aim of this review is to identify the front line of MPM biomarkers with current or potential clinical impact. Literature search using the PubMed and PLoS One databases, the related-articles function of PubMed and the reference lists of associated publications until April 26th 2015 revealed a plethora of candidate biomarkers. The current gold standard of MPM diagnosis is a combination of two positive and two negative immunohistochemical markers in the epithelioid and biphasic type, but sarcomatous type do not have specific markers, making diagnosis more difficult. Mesothelin in serum and pleural fluid may serve as adjuvant diagnostic with high specificity but low sensitivity. Circulating proteomic and microRNA signatures, fibulin-3, tumor cell gene-ratio test, transcriptomic, lncRNA, glycopeptides, pleural fluid FISH assay, hyaluronate/N-ERC mesothelin and deformability cytometry may be important future markers. Putative predictive markers for pemetrexed-platinum are tumor TS and TYMS, for vinorelbine the ERCC1, beta-tubuline class III and BRCA1. Mutations of the BAP1 gene are potential markers of MPM susceptibility. In conclusion, the current status of MPM biomarkers is not satisfactory but encouraging as more sensitive and specific non-invasive markers are emerging. However, prospective validation is needed before clinical application. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Cancer Treatment Reviews 05/2015; 41(6). DOI:10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.05.001 · 7.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The negative to rare expression of well-established mesothelioma-related markers (Calretinin, Keratin 5/6, and WT1) demonstrated in meningioma cases in our study contrasts with their known patterns of expression in mesothelioma [14–16]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Meningiomas are common intracranial tumors. Recently, histogenetic and phenotypic similarities between meningiomas and mesotheliomas have been proposed. We were interested in whether these similarities are reflected on the immunohistochemical level, which would add new potentially diagnostic markers for meningiomas. Methods. The expression of mesothelioma-related markers (D2-40, Calretinin, Keratin 5/6, WT1, and Methotheioma-Ab1) was investigated in 87 cases of meningiomas and compared to EMA expression. Results. 73.6% of meningioma cases were grade I, 20.7% were grade II, and 5.7% were grade III. 83.9% of meningioma cases were classical and 16.1% had special nonmeningothelial features. D2-40 was expressed in 37.9% of cases and was significantly restricted to classical meningiomas. Calretinin and WT1 were negative while Keratin 5/6 and Mesothelioma-Ab1 were weakly expressed in classical variants (5.7% and 3.4%, resp.). EMA was consistently expressed in all cases. Its expression was significantly higher than that of mesothelioma-related markers; this held true also when D2-40 expression was considered separately. Conclusions. Mesothelioma-related markers are not extensively expressed in meningiomas, a finding that argues against their proposed histogenetic and phenotypic similarities. Compared to EMA, the significantly lower expression of mesothelioma-related markers and their restricted expression to classical meningioma variants hamper their potential future use as diagnostic markers for meningioma.
    BioMed Research International 04/2014; 2014(6):968794. DOI:10.1155/2014/968794 · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Its positive rate in mesothelioma is comparable to that of calretinin [20]. A recent systemic review also confirms that CK5/6 is one of the two most sensitive IHC markers (sensitivity of 83%), and one of the two most specific IHC markers (specificity of 85%) for epitheloid mesothelioma [30]. However, many tumors other than mesothelioma are also positive for CK5/6, including but not limited to 88% of adenosquamous carcinoma of the pancreas [53], 55% of metastatic squamous carcinoma of various origin [54], 75% of lung squamous cell carcinoma in fine needle aspirate specimens [55], 100% of squamous cell carcinoma in pleural fluids [14], 98% of squamous cell carcinoma and 18% of adenocarcinoma in the lung [56], 62% of urothelial carcinoma [57], and 50% of endometrial adenocarcinoma [57]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Mesothelin, a mesothelial marker, has been found expressed in and as a potential treatment target of cholangioacarcinoma (CC). It is possible that CC may be derived from the cells sharing mesothelial markers. However, the expression of other mesothelial markers in CC is largely unknown. Methods Thirty CC cases (10 extrahepatic and 20 intrahepatic) were retrieved from our institutional archive. The immunohistochemical study of Calretinin (DC8), WT1 (6F-H2), Lymphatic Endothelial Marker (D2-40), CK5/6 (D5/16 B4) and CK19 (b170) was done on formalin fixed paraffin embedded sections for 2–3 blocks of each case. We compared the expression levels between CC and normal bile duct (NBD) on the same block. Results All of the CC and NBD are positive for CK19 (23/23) and negative for WT1 (0/23) and D2-40 (0/23), except one CC positive for D2-40(1/30, 3.3%) and one NBD positive for WT1 (1/23, 4.3%). Calretinin immunoreactivity was detected in 52.2% (12/23) of CC, but none in NBD (0/23). CK5/6 was also detectable in 73.3% (22/30) of CC and all NBD (30/30). Increased expression of calretinin and reduced expression of CK5/6 were more likely associated with CC than NBD (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). The sequential staining pattern of positive calretinin and negative CK5/6 in calretinin negative cases has a sensitivity of 69.57% and a specificity of 100% for differentiating CC from NBD. CK5/6 expression was also more likely associated with well-differentiated CC (7/7 versus 12/20 in moderately differentiated, and 9/10 in poorly differentiated, P = 0.019) and extrahepatic CC (10/10 versus 12/20 in intrahepatic, P = 0.029), but there was no association between the calretinin expression and the CC grade or location. Conclusion Calretinin and CK5/6 immunohistochemical stains may be useful for diagnosing a CC. Their immunohistochemical results should be interpreted with caution in the cases with differential diagnoses of mesothelioma and CC. A full mesothelioma panel, including WT1 and/or D2-40, is recommended to better define a mesothelial lineage. The biology of calretinin and CK5/6 expression in CC is unclear, but might shed light on identifying therapeutic targets for CC.
    04/2014; 3(1):12. DOI:10.1186/2162-3619-3-12
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

33 Reads