Đačić, Sanja

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.

Context.— The pathologic diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) remains a challenging area, and application of histologic UIP guidelines has proved difficult. Objective.— To understand current practice approaches by pulmonary pathologists for the histologic diagnosis of UIP and other fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Design.— The Pulmonary Pathology Society (PPS) ILD Working Group developed and sent a 5-part survey on fibrotic ILD electronically to the PPS membership. Results.— One hundred sixty-one completed surveys were analyzed. Of the respondents, 89% reported using published histologic features in clinical guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in their pathologic diagnosis; however, there was variability in reporting terminology, quantity and quality of histologic features, and the use of guideline categorization. Respondents were very likely to have access to pulmonary pathology colleagues (79%), pulmonologists (98%), and radiologists (94%) to discuss cases. Half of respondents reported they may alter their pathologic diagnosis based on additional clinical and radiologic history if it is pertinent. Airway-centered fibrosis, granulomas, and types of inflammatory infiltrates were considered important, but there was poor agreement on how these features are defined. Conclusions.— There is significant consensus among the PPS membership on the importance of histologic guidelines/features of UIP. There are unmet needs for (1) consensus and standardization of diagnostic terminology and incorporation of recommended histopathologic categories from the clinical IPF guidelines into pathology reports, (2) agreement on how to incorporate into the report relevant clinical and radiographic information, and (3) defining the quantity and quality of features needed to suggest alternative diagnoses.

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.— Accurate diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) requires multidisciplinary diagnosis that includes clinical, radiologic, and often pathologic assessment. In 2018, the American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and the Latin American Thoracic Society (ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT) and the Fleischner Society each published guidelines for the diagnosis of IPF, which include criteria for 4 categories of confidence of a histologic usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern. Objective.— To (1) identify the role of the guidelines in pathologic assessment of UIP; (2) analyze the 4 guideline categories, including potential areas of difficulty; and (3) determine steps the Pulmonary Pathology Society and the greater pulmonary pathology community can take to improve current guideline criteria and histopathologic diagnosis of interstitial lung disease. Data Sources.— Data were derived from the guidelines, published literature, and clinical experience. Conclusions.— Both guidelines provide pathologists with a tool to relay to the clinician the likelihood that a biopsy represents UIP, and serve as an adjunct, not a replacement, for traditional histologic diagnosis. There are multiple challenges with implementing the guidelines, including (1) lack of clarity on the quantity and quality of histologic findings required, (2) lack of recognition that histologic features cannot be assessed independently, and (3) lack of guidance on how pathologists should incorporate clinical and radiographic information. Current criteria for “probable UIP” and “indeterminate for UIP” hinder accurate reflection of the likelihood of IPF. These challenges highlight the need for further morphologic-based investigations in the field of pulmonary pathology.

11085 Background: The College of American Pathologists (CAP), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) jointly initiated an effort to establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. Methods: Three co-chairs without relevant conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the sponsoring societies: CAP (P.T.C.), IASLC (M.L.), and AMP (N.I.L.). Writing and advisory panels were formed from additional experts from these societies. Unbiased literature searches were performed to capture articles up to February 2012, yielding 1,533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for relevance. Evidence was formally graded for each of the recommendations first formulated by the co-chairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least two panelists. Successive drafts were circulated for comments to the writing panel, the advisory panel, the public (online posting), and the three professional societies. Results: We generated 37 guideline items addressing 14 areas of EGFR and ALK testing. The major, evidence-based recommendations are to test for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions in all patients with advanced stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, or smoking history, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. Recommendations and expert consensus opinions were generated for all other key aspects of EGFR and ALK testing in lung cancer related to oncology and pathology practice and technical issues in molecular testing. Conclusions: As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards and thereby improving patient outcomes.

Context.— The diagnosis and grading of acute cellular and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in lung allograft biopsies is important because rejection can lead to acute graft dysfunction and/or failure and may contribute to chronic graft failure. While acute cellular rejection is well defined histologically, no reproducible specific features of AMR are currently identified. Therefore, a combination of clinical features, serology, histopathology, and immunologic findings is suggested for the diagnosis of AMR. Objective.— To describe the perspective of members of the Pulmonary Pathology Society (PPS) on the workup of lung allograft transbronchial biopsy and the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection and AMR in lung transplant. Data Sources.— Reports by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), experience of members of PPS who routinely review lung allograft biopsies, and search of literature database (PubMed). Conclusions.— Acute cellular rejection should be assessed and graded according to the 2007 working formulation of the ISHLT. As currently no specific features are known for AMR in lung allografts, the triple test (clinical allograft dysfunction, donor-specific antibodies, pathologic findings) should be used for its diagnosis. C4d staining might be performed when morphologic, clinical, and/or serologic features suggestive of AMR are identified.

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.