Butnor, Kelly J.

Context.— Mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective.— To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. Data Sources.— Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with expertise in mesothelioma contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. Conclusions.— There was consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) histomorphologic diagnosis of mesothelial tumors, including distinction of epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma; recognition of morphologic variants and patterns; and recognition of common morphologic pitfalls; (2) molecular pathogenesis of mesothelioma; (3) application of immunohistochemical markers to establish mesothelial lineage and distinguish mesothelioma from common morphologic differentials; (4) application of ancillary studies to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations, including BAP1 and MTAP immunostains; novel immunomarkers such as Merlin and p53; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for homozygous deletion of CDKN2A; and novel molecular assays; (5) practical recommendations for routine reporting of mesothelioma, including grading epithelioid mesothelioma and other prognostic parameters; (6) diagnosis of mesothelioma in situ; (7) cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma, including use of immunostains and molecular assays; and (8) features of nonmalignant peritoneal mesothelial lesions.

Abstract Objectives Numerous studies on malignant mesothelioma (MM) highlight the prognostic importance of histologic subtype, nuclear grade, and necrosis. This study compares these parameters in paired biopsy and resection specimens of pleural MM. Methods Histologic subtype, percentage of epithelioid morphology, nuclear grade, and the presence or absence of necrosis were compared in 429 paired biopsies and resection specimens of pleural MM from 19 institutions. Results Histologic subtype was concordant in 81% of cases (κ = 0.58). When compared with resection specimens, epithelioid morphology at biopsy had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 78.9% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93.5%; sarcomatoid morphology showed high PPV (92.9%) and NPV (99.3%), and biphasic morphology PPV was 89.7% and NPV was 79.7%. Agreement of the percentage of epithelioid morphology was fair (κ = 0.27). Nuclear grade and necrosis were concordant in 75% (κ = 0.59) and 81% (κ = 0.53) of cases, respectively. Nuclear grade showed moderate (κ = 0.53) and substantial (κ = 0.67) agreement from patients with and without neoadjuvant therapy, respectively, and necrosis showed moderate (κ = 0.47 and κ = 0.60) agreement, respectively, in the same subsets of paired specimens. Conclusions Paired biopsy-resection specimens from pleural MM show overall moderate agreement in pathologic parameters. These findings may help guide postbiopsy management and triage of patients with MM.

Context .—Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective .—To provide updated practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. Data Sources .—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. Conclusions .—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.