Mesothelioma: morphologic and immunohistochemical findings

This paper reviews some basic and some new concepts in the diagnosis of mesothelioma. The term “malignant mesothelioma” is no longer recommended; rather, any tumor labeled “mesothelioma” is presumed to be malignant. Clinical and radiologic information is very useful in the diagnosis of mesothelioma; in particular, nodular pleural thickening on CT is usually a marker of malignancy. The literature on markers that separate mesotheliomas from metastatic carcinomas has become very complex and frequently misleading, with many recommended markers actually demonstrating poor specificity. However, newer data show that a combination of HEG1 (clone SKM9-2) and claudin‑4 staining provides extremely high accuracy in separating epithelioid mesotheliomas from non-small-cell lung carcinomas with just two immunostains. This combination works at other sites as well, but caution should be used when high-grade serous carcinoma is in the differential, because all “mesothelioma” markers can also stain high-grade serous carcinomas. There are, unfortunately, no sensitive or specific markers for sarcomatoid mesotheliomas. A variety of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) markers are useful in separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations; immunohistochemal staining for BAP1, MTAP (or CDKN2A FISH), and NF2/Merlin (or NF2 FISH) will enable the diagnosis of most mesotheliomas. Mesothelioma in situ is now recognized as either a single layer of bland cuboidal mesothelial cells that have lost BAP1, and sometimes MTAP, on immunohistochemical staining, or a process that is morphologically identical to a well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor that has lost BAP1/MTAP. Mesothelioma in situ probably always progresses to invasive mesothelioma, but this process is often quite slow.