ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The value of BAP1 immunocytochemistry and CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnosis of serous effusion malignant mesothelioma and an analysis of the association between degree of cell atypia and the results of two auxiliary methods
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Pathology and Resident Training Base, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
2
Department of Pathology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital and Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, China
Submission date: 2019-10-18
Final revision date: 2020-03-29
Acceptance date: 2020-04-06
Publication date: 2020-10-25
Pol J Pathol 2020;71(3):229-235
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a rare, highly aggressive tumor. The first symptom of MM is mostly serous effusion, and cytology can be used in diagnosis based on effusion, providing patients with an earlier diagnosis and treatment opportunity.
A total of 67 specimens were embedded into cell blocks, and BAP1 immunocytochemistry (ICC) was performed. CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed in 45 cases. The sensitivity, specificity and the association between the degree of cell atypia and the results of two auxiliary methods were analyzed.
BAP1 ICC showed nonexpression in 13 of 24 cases of MM and 0 of 21 cases of benign mesothelial proliferation (BMP). The sensitivity was 54.2% (13/24), and the specificity was 100% (21/21). In addition, 22 metastatic adenocarcinoma (MA) cases all showed BAP1 expression. MM with BAP1 expression had more obvious cell atypia. CDKN2A deletion was found in 12 of 24 MM cases and 0 of 21 BMP cases. The sensitivity was 50% (12/24), and the specificity was 100% (21/21). BAP1 ICC and CDKN2A FISH are useful methods to differentiate MM from BMP. The cell atypia of MM with BAP1 expression was more obvious than MM with BAP1 nonexpression.
REFERENCES (22)
1.
Kato S, Tomson BN, Buys TP, et al. Genomic Landscape of Malignant Mesotheliomas. Mol Cancer Ther 2016; 15: 2498-2507.
2.
Testa JR, Cheung M, Pei J, et al. Germline BAP1 mutations predispose to malignant mesothelioma. Nat Genet 2011; 43: 1022-1025.
3.
Carbone M, Flores EG, Emi M, et al. Combined genetic and genealogic studies uncover a large BAP1 cancer syndrome kindred tracing back nine generations to a common ancestor from the 1700s. PLoS Genet 2015; 11: e1005633.
4.
Andrici J, Jung J, Sheen A, et al. Loss of BAP1 expression is very rare in peritoneal and gynecologic serous adenocarcinomas and can be useful in the differential diagnosis with abdominal mesothelioma. Hum Pathol 2016; 51: 9-15.
5.
Hwang HC, Pyott S, Rodriguez S, et al. BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16 FISH in the diagnosis of sarcomatous and desmoplastic mesotheliomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 714-718.
6.
Andrici J, Sheen A, Sioson L, et al. Loss of expression of BAP1 is a useful adjunct, which strongly supports the diagnosis of mesothelioma in effusion cytology. Mod Pathol 2015; 28: 1360-1368.
7.
Cigognetti M, Lonardi S, Fisogni S, et al. BAP1 (BRCA1-associated protein 1) is a highly specific marker for differentiating mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial proliferations. Mod Pathol 2015; 28: 1043-1057.
8.
Farzin M, Toon CW, Clarkson A, et al. Loss of expression of BAP1 predicts longer survival in mesothelioma. Pathology 2015; 47: 302-307.
9.
Nasu M, Emi M, Pastorino S, et al. High incidence of somatic BAP1 alterations in sporadic malignant mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol 2015; 10: 565-576.
10.
Yoshikawa Y, Sato A, Tsujimura T, et al. Frequent inactivation of the BAP1 gene in epithelioid-type malignant mesothelioma. Cancer Sci 2012; 103: 868-874.
11.
Sheffield BS, Hwang HC, Lee AF, et al. BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16 FISH to separate benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations. Am J Surg Pathol 2015; 39: 977-982.
12.
Mcgregor SM, Dunning R, Hyjek E, et al. BAP1 facilitates diagnostic objectivity, classification, and prognostication in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Hum Pathol 2015; 46: 1670-1678.
13.
Monaco SE, Shuai Y, Bansal M, et al. The diagnostic utility of p16 FISH and GLUT-1 immunohistochemical analysis in mesothelial proliferations. Am J Clin Pathol 2011; 135: 619-627.
14.
Krasinskas AM, Bartlett DL, Cieply K, et al. CDKN2A and MTAP deletions in peritoneal mesotheliomas are correlated with loss of p16 protein expression and poor survival. Mod Pathol 2010; 23: 531-538.
15.
Illei PB, Rusch VW, Zakowski MF, et al. Homozygous deletion of CDKN2A and codeletion of the methylthioadenosine phosphorylase gene in the majority of pleural mesotheliomas. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 2108-2113.
16.
Chiosea S, Krasinskas A, Cagle PT, et al. Diagnostic importance of 9p21 homozygous deletion in malignant mesotheliomas. Mod Pathol 2008; 21: 742-747.
17.
Chung CT, Santos GC, Hwang DM, et al. FISH assay development for the detection of p16/CDKN2A deletion in malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Pathol 2010; 63: 630-634.
18.
Hwang H, Tse C, Rodriguez S, et al. p16 FISH deletion in surface epithelial mesothelial proliferations is predictive of underlying invasive mesothelioma. Am J Surg Pathol 2014; 38: 681-688.
19.
Ito T, Hamasaki M, Matsumoto S, et al. p16/CDKN2A FISH in differentiation of diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma from mesothelial hyperplasia and epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 2015; 143: 830-838.
20.
Tochigi N, Attanoos R, Chirieac LR, et al. p16 Deletion in sarcomatoid tumors of the lung and pleura. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013; 137: 632-636.
21.
Takeda M, Kasai T, Enomoto Y, et al. 9p21 deletion in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, using fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Pathol Int 2010; 60: 395-399.
22.
Wu D, Hiroshima K, Matsumoto S, et al. Diagnostic usefulness of p16/CDKN2A FISH in distinguishing between sarcomatoid mesothelioma and fibrous pleuritis. Am J Clin Pathol 2013; 139: 39-46.