Guidelines for cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed type malignant mesothelioma. Complementary statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group, also endorsed by the International Academy of Cytology and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. To provide updated practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with an interest in the field contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinction of benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiation of epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. It is recommended that immunohistochemical markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist.

Introduction: Cytology provides crucial window for early diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) since it is often the first and easily available material for evaluation, resulting in early treatment. Still, its role is overlooked in the current treatment guidelines. The aim of this study is to determine the sensitivity of cytomorphology and role of subsequent ancillary techniques in diagnosing MM. Methods: This is a 5-year retrospective analysis of MM in the tertiary oncology center to determine sensitivity of cytomorphology and subsequent role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in final diagnosis of MM according to the guidelines for cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma (GCDMM) laid by International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Cytomorphology and immunocytochemistry from effusions and fine needle aspirations were analyzed. Results: Sixty-two of 128 cases of MM had cytology and cytomorphological criteria described in GCDMM were fulfilled in 61.3% cases. Architectural atypia was useful in identifying cases with low cytological atypia. Overall sensitivity of cytomorphology was 73.01%. Sensitivity of effusion cytology was 77.8%. Subsequent IHC on cell blocks revealed the sensitivity as 100% for mesothelin, calretinin, and cytokeratin 5/6; 87.5% for thrombomodulin; and 50% for WT1, while CEA and TTF1 showed 100% specificity. Treatment was given based on final diagnosis of MM given after IHC on cytology material in only 25.8% cases. However, it was possible in additional 35.5% cases. Mean survival was 10 months when diagnosed by cytology, compared to 7 months by histology. Conclusions: Rather than ignoring the role of cytology in the diagnosis and treatment guidelines for MM, it is important to understand its strengths and limitations. Standardized guidelines in future can play an important role in more streamlined communication between cytopathologist and clinician.

- Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. - To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. - Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with an interest and expertise in the field contributed to this update. Reference material included up-to-date, peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. - There was discussion and consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) recognition of the key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid MM, (7) use of molecular markers in the diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels employed is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Depending on the morphology, immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers for mesothelial differentiation and for lesions considered in the differential diagnosis. Immunohistochemical markers should have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic and membranous markers). Selected molecular markers are now being used to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations. These guidelines are meant to be a practical diagnostic reference for the pathologist; however, some new pathologic predictors of prognosis and response to therapy are also included.

To provide practical guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Cytopathologists with an interest in the field involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) and the International Academy of Cytology (IAC) contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. This article is the result of discussions during and after the IMIG 2012 conference in Boston, followed by thorough discussions during the 2013 IAC meeting in Paris. Additional contributions have been obtained from cytopathologists and scientists who could not attend these meetings, with final discussions and input during the IMIG 2014 conference in Cape Town.

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. To develop practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. A pathology panel was convened at the International Mesothelioma Interest Group biennial meeting (October 2006). Pathologists with an interest in the field also contributed after the meeting. There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the differential diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group recommends that markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist.

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) in effusion specimens is controversial. At the study institution (Northwestern University), a primary diagnosis of MM is made on fluid cytology specimens. In an effort to estimate the practice at other institutions, a survey was disseminated regarding cytologic diagnosis of MM. The authors also evaluated their own institution's experience with primary cytologic diagnosis of MM. Patients with MM at the study institution were identified from 1992 through 2011. Fluid cytology specimens preceding histologic diagnoses were reviewed. A survey was sent to a number of cytology laboratories to assess practice patterns regarding the diagnosis of MM. At the study institution, 20 cases of MM had effusion specimens preceding the diagnostic histologic material. In 6 cases (30%), a definitive diagnosis of MM was rendered via cytology alone. There were no false-positive diagnoses of MM. Of 55 laboratories that responded to the survey, 36 reported making a definitive diagnosis of MM after cytologic analysis. Almost all laboratories (35) willing to diagnose MM in effusions reported performing immunohistochemistry to distinguish adenocarcinoma from MM. A smaller proportion (18) of these laboratories reported doing additional immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization for p16 to help distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations. Those who do not definitively diagnose MM in fluid specimens state inability to identify invasion and overlap with reactive mesothelial proliferation as factors supporting their practice. Most respondents (32) felt that the clinicians at their institution would manage a patient based on a cytologic diagnosis of MM. The majority of respondents reported making a definitive diagnosis of MM in effusion cytology specimens. The diagnosis of MM in effusions, although not sensitive, is extremely specific.

A conclusive diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) can be based on effusion cytology using the guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type MM. Briefly, the diagnosis is obtained when the mesothelial phenotype of malignant cells is established by ancillary techniques. This study is based on the comparison of the overall survival rates of patients with MM when diagnosed by effusion cytology, histopathology, or a combination of both. A total of 144 patients were diagnosed with epithelioid and mixed-type pleural MM at Karolinska University Hospital between 2004 and 2013. The diagnosis was obtained by histopathology in 74 cases and by cytological examination of pleural effusion in 70 cases. In 29 of the latter cases, a diagnostic biopsy was obtained simultaneously. A total of 104 patients received chemotherapy. All diagnoses were supported by clinical findings, including computer tomography scans. The median time between first symptoms and diagnosis was similar for cytology and histopathology. However, a delay of more than 6 months after first symptoms was seen in many patients in the histopathology group, resulting in late onset of treatment. The overall survival and proportion of long-term survival were significantly better for cases diagnosed by cytology. Similarly, a better survival, following a cytological diagnosis, was also seen in patients who were only provided the best supportive care. Accurate cytological diagnosis enables conclusive diagnosis of MM. Our finding enables the initiation of treatment as soon as the cytological diagnosis is established, avoiding further delay and deterioration of patient survival and possibilities for treatment.

The guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of epithelioid and mixed-type malignant mesothelioma produced by the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and which are endorsed by the International Academy of Cytology and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology are reviewed and discussed. This (predominantly) evidence-based document provides a robust and useful framework for diagnosticians and guideline producers to emphasise and promote the value, power and role of cytology in mesothelioma diagnosis and management with comments and suggestions about how the guidelines can be updated and improved in the future.

Objective: To provide practical guidelines for the cytopathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Data Sources: Cytopathologists with an interest in the field involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) and the International Academy of Cytology (IAC) contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. Rationale: This article is the result of discussions during and after the IMIG 2012 conference in Boston, followed by thorough discussions during the 2013 IAC meeting in Paris. Additional contributions have been obtained from cytopathologists and scientists who could not attend these meetings, with final discussions and input during the IMIG 2014 conference in Cape Town.

Pleural malignant mesothelioma (MM) includes several unusual and even rare but distinctive histological subtypes, in addition to the usual subdivision into epithelioid, biphasic and sarcomatoid MM. Criteria for discrimination between...

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) is rendered with the aid of immunohistochemistry to demonstrate the presence of "mesothelial," "epithelial," or "sarcomatous" differentiation. Antibody panels that have been proposed for the distinction between MM and other neoplasms usually include 2 or more epithelial markers used to exclude the diagnosis of a carcinoma, such as monoclonal and polyclonal carcinoembryonic antigen, Ber-EP4, B72.3, CD15, MOC-31, thyroid transcription factor 1, BG8, and others, and 2 or more mesothelial markers used to confirm the diagnosis of MM, such as cytokeratin 5/6, calretinin, HBME-1, thrombomodulin, WT-1, mesothelin, D2-40, and podoplanin. In general, most antibody panels provide excellent sensitivity and specificity for the differential diagnosis between MM epithelial variant and adenocarcinoma, particularly of lung origin. However, the accuracy of these markers is lower for the diagnosis of sarcomatous MM and for the differential diagnosis between MM and squamous cell carcinoma and carcinomas of renal, ovarian, and other origin. To identify optimal antibody panels for the diagnosis of MM. Literature review to determine how many and which mesothelial and epithelial markers need to be included in differential diagnosis antibody panels. Various antibody panels have been recommended for the diagnosis of MM, with no overall consensus about how many and which markers should be used. A recent study with Bayesian statistics has demonstrated that the use of many markers does not provide higher diagnostic accuracy than the use of selected single antibodies or various combinations of only 2 markers. There is a need for the development of evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines for the diagnosis of MM in different differential diagnosis situations.

Cytology allows the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) from effusions with high specificity but low sensitivity. Conversely, elevated levels of hyaluronic acid (HA) in effusions are sensitive indicators of MM, although specificity is insufficient. We studied whether the cytological diagnosis of MM could be improved by HA analysis. HA was analysed in patients with histologically confirmed MM (n=162), adenocarcinoma or other malignant tumours (n=100) and in 90 patients with benign pleural diseases. In 77 out of 162 effusions, all, and in 33 some, cytological criteria of MM were satisfied. The cut-off value of HA showing maximum diagnostic reliability (86%) regarding MM was 30 mg/l (sensitivity 87%, specificity 86%). A HA value of 100 mg/l yielded 39 and 98%, respectively. Seventy three out of 77 patients with cytological findings indicative of MM showed HA levels greater than 30 mg/l as well as 27 of 33 patients with suspicious lesions. These 100 patients were correctly recognised as having MM. The addition of HA analysis to cytology, requiring all or some criteria of MM as positive, increased sensitivity for MM from 48 to 71-91%, whereas specificity only slightly decreased to 94-96%. We conclude that the combined cytological and HA analysis of pleural effusions had the potential to improve the diagnosis of MM.

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) in serous effusions is difficult but may be achieved by the application of adjuvant methods. The authors cytologically diagnosed 33 effusions as suspicious or positive for MM cells by using DNA-image cytometry (DNA-ICM), immunocytochemistry and AgNOR analysis. The authors further detected 9p21 deletions by chromosomal fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). In addition, 31 cases of metastatic carcinomas and 39 of tumor cell-negative effusions were investigated. All diagnoses were confirmed by histologic and/or clinical follow-up. DNA aneuploidy was found in 71% of MMs, 100% of metastatic carcinomas, and in none of the negative effusions. Calretinin was positive in 100% of MMs, in none of the metastatic carcinomas, and in 94.9% of negative effusions. BerEP4 showed positivity in 15.6% of MMs, 87.1% of metastatic carcinomas, and in none of the negative effusions. With AgNOR analysis, 89.3% of MMs and 96.7% of metastatic carcinomas showed >or=2.5 AgNOR dots as satellites and >or=4.5 as total AgNOR counts. 9p21 deletions were demonstrated in 90.9% of MM cases, 45.2% of metastatic carcinomas, and in none of the negative effusions. By cytology alone, 81.8% of MMs were identified unequivocally. Addition of DNA-ICM improved the prevalence of tumor cell detection to 87.9% and of AgNOR analysis to 97%. The introduction of 9p21 deletions by FISH improved this prevalence to 100%. Because of these results, the authors propose the sequential application of immunocytochemistry, DNA-ICM, and AgNOR analysis to establish a cytological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in serous effusions. In persistent doubtful diagnoses, the authors recommend fluorescence in situ hybridization to analyze the 9p21 deletion.

Improving the Accuracy of Mesothelioma Diagnosis in China

Rationale. The diagnosis of pleural malignant mesothelioma (MM) by effusion cytology may be difficult and is currently controversial. Effusion mesothelin levels are increased in patients with MM but the clinical role of this test is uncertain. Objectives. To determine the clinical value of measuring mesothelin levels in pleural effusion supernatant to aid diagnosis of MM. Methods and Measurements. Pleural effusion samples were collected prospectively from 1331 consecutive patients. Mesothelin levels were determined by commercial ELISA in effusions and their relationship to concurrent pathology reporting and final clinical diagnosis was determined. Results. 2156 pleural effusion samples from 1331 individuals were analysed. The final clinical diagnosis was 183 MM, 436 non-MM malignancy, and 712 nonmalignant effusions. Effusion mesothelin had a sensitivity of 67% for MM at 95% specificity. Mesothelin was elevated in over 47% of MM cases in effusions obtained before definitive diagnosis of MM was established. In the setting of inconclusive effusion cytology, effusion mesothelin had a positive predictive value of 79% for MM and 94% for malignancy. Conclusions. A mesothelin-positive pleural effusion, irrespective of the identification of malignant cells, indicates the likely presence of malignancy and adds weight to the clinical rationale for further investigation to establish a malignant diagnosis.