A variety of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains have been proposed to mark either benign or malignant mesothelial proliferations. Loss of the p16 tumor suppressor (CDKN2A), through homozygous deletions of 9p21, is a good marker of mesotheliomas but lacks sensitivity. Recent reports indicate that some mesotheliomas are associated with loss of BRCA-associated protein 1 (BAP1) expression. Here we investigate BAP1 and p16 as potential markers of malignancy and compare test characteristics with previously proposed markers using a well-characterized tissue microarray. BAP1 protein expression was interrogated by IHC. The p16 locus was examined by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) directed toward chromosome 9p21. Loss of BAP1 was identified in 7/26 mesotheliomas and 0/49 benign proliferations. Loss of p16 was identified in 14/27 mesotheliomas and 0/40 benign proliferations, yielding 100% specificity and positive predictive value for each marker. Together, BAP1 IHC and p16 FISH were 58% sensitive for detecting malignancy. Various combinations of p53, EMA, IMP3, and GLUT1 showed reasonably high specificity (96% to 98%) but poor to extremely poor sensitivity. Combined BAP1 IHC/p16 FISH testing is a highly specific method of diagnosing malignant mesotheliomas when the question is whether a mesothelial proliferation is benign or malignant and is particularly useful when tissue invasion by mesothelial cells cannot be demonstrated. However, combined BAP1/p16 FISH testing is not highly sensitive, and negative results do not rule out a mesothelioma. The test characteristics of previously proposed markers EMA, p53, GLUT1, IMP3 suggest that, even in combination, these markers are not useful tools in this clinical setting.

The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma in effusion cytology specimens is controversial. BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) have recently been reported as reliable markers of malignancy in biopsies of mesothelioma. To determine whether these markers, singly or in combination, might also be useful in effusion cytology specimens, we examined 15 biopsies of epithelial mesotheliomas and 3 benign mesothelial reactions and corresponding effusion cytology paraffin-embedded cell blocks. Four cytology specimens were too scanty for p16 FISH analysis but were interpretable for BAP1 immunohistochemistry. Overall, loss of BAP1 and/or deletion of p16 was seen in 11/11 (100%) of matched cytology and tissue biopsy specimens. BAP1 loss alone was seen in 10/15 (67%) biopsies and 10/15 (67%) cytology specimens. Homozygous deletion of p16 by FISH was found in 12/15 (80%) biopsy specimens and 8/11 (73%) evaluable cytology specimens. Seven of 15 (47%) biopsies and 5/11 (42%) cytology specimens showed loss of both markers. All mesothelioma biopsy/cytology pairs showed exactly the same pattern of BAP1 or p16 retention or loss in the biopsy and cytology specimens. The 2 peritoneal mesothelioma cases demonstrated loss of BAP1 but not p16. None of the benign mesothelial reactions or corresponding cytology specimens showed loss of either marker. We conclude that both BAP1 immunohistochemistry and p16 FISH analysis provide reliable markers of mesothelial malignancy in effusion cytology specimens, especially where the atypical mesothelial proliferation is well sampled. BAP1 is easier to interpret with scanty specimens. On the basis of small numbers of cases, use of both markers appears to increase sensitivity.

The separation of sarcomatous and desmoplastic mesotheliomas from benign organizing pleuritis can be morphologically very difficult. Deletion of p16 (CDKN2A) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing appears to be a reliable marker of malignancy in mesothelial proliferations, and more recently it has been reported that, in this setting, loss of BAP1 by immunohistochemistry is only seen in malignant mesotheliomas. To determine how useful these tests are with sarcomatous and desmoplastic mesotheliomas, we examined 20 such tumors. Loss of BAP1 was seen in 3/20 (15%) and deletion of p16 by FISH was seen in 16/20 (80%) cases. Loss of one or the other marker was observed in 17/20 (85%). We also examined 13 sarcomatoid carcinomas, an important differential diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, and found that BAP1 was never lost, but p16 was deleted in 3/11 (27%). We conclude that: (1) BAP1 immunohistochemistry is relatively insensitive in the context of sarcomatous and desmoplastic mesotheliomas, but as a matter of time and cost efficiency may nonetheless be a useful first approach to the problem; (2) deletion of p16 by FISH is considerably more sensitive, but there remain a proportion of cases in which p16 is not deleted; (3) a small improvement in sensitivity can be achieved by using both markers; (4) in the context of a spindle cell malignant tumor in the pleura or peritoneum, which morphologically might be a metastatic sarcomatoid carcinoma or a mesothelioma, the finding of BAP1 loss favors mesothelioma, but p16 FISH cannot be used to separate sarcomatous mesotheliomas from sarcomatoid carcinomas.

An atypical mesothelial proliferation along the pleural or peritoneal surface without evidence of invasive tumor poses a diagnostic challenge. Homozygous deletion of p16 (CDKN2A) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been shown to be a good marker of malignancy in mesothelial proliferations, but correlations of p16 status between atypical surface proliferations and underlying mesothelioma have not been described. We used p16 FISH to investigate 11 pleural and 7 peritoneal mesotheliomas that had both an invasive component and a separate surface mesothelial proliferation. In 5/11 pleural samples and 1/7 peritoneal samples, the invasive mesotheliomas showed homozygous deletion of p16 (all cases in excess of 90% of cells deleted); the surface proliferation in all 6 cases with deletion in the invasive tumor was also p16 deleted. Conversely, the 12 tumors that did not show p16 deletion in the invasive compartment also did not have deletion in the surface component. We conclude that (1) surface mesothelial proliferations near invasive mesotheliomas show the same pattern of p16 by FISH as the underlying tumor and may represent in situ disease or growth of the underlying mesothelioma along the serosal surface; (2) p16 deletion in mesothelial surface proliferations is strongly associated with p16 deletion in underlying mesotheliomas, and biopsies consisting of pure surface mesothelial proliferations that are p16 deleted allow a diagnosis of mesothelioma without an additional biopsy if there is clinical (thoracosopic/laparoscopic) or radiologic evidence of diffuse pleural or peritoneal tumor; (3) however, the absence of p16 deletion in surface proliferations does not rule out underlying invasive mesothelioma.

No abstract