The presence of estrogen receptors (ERs), as detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC), is a weak prognostic marker of clinical outcome in breast cancer, but a strong predictive marker for response, for ...example, to tamoxifen-based therapy. As with all IHC markers, factors such as tissue fixation (both type and duration), the choice of antibody, and the threshold for interpretation of positive immunostaining can dramatically affect test accuracy and reproducibility. For example, optimal fixation for detection of ER requires at least 6-8 h in formalin, and the use of newer antibodies such as SP1 may identify additional patients who might benefit from hormonal therapy. Although the threshold for positivity may be as few as 1% of tumor cells showing nuclear signal, recent studies appear to demonstrate a dichotomization of ER IHC, with the vast majority of cases showing all positive or all negative results. This may be helpful in dictating the appropriateness of hormonal therapy, but quantification of ER by IHC, or other methods, may play a more important role in the future. Breast cancers with human epidermal receptor protein-2 (c-erbB-2; HER2) alterations are critical to identify because such tumors require unique treatment, including the use of targeted therapies such as trastuzumab. HER2 alterations at the DNA (amplification) and protein (overexpression) level usually occur in concert, and both fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or IHC can be accurate methods to assess these alterations. However, recent studies have suggested that serious reproducibility issues exist in both FISH and IHC HER2 studies. To address this, a joint committee of both the American Society for Clinical Oncologists and the College of American Pathologists has promulgated new guidelines for HER2 testing. These include the following: (a) recommendations for tissue fixation for more than 6 and less than 48 h; (b) new scoring criteria, including a new threshold of 30% strong immunostaining for classification of 3+; (c) introduction of the term 'equivocal' to characterize HER2 studies that are 2+ by IHC and/or show HER2/chromosome 17 ratios of between 1.8 and 2.2 by FISH; (d) requirements for laboratories to validate HER2 assays, generally through the cross-testing of cases with another HER2 methodology, with laboratories required to attain 95% concordance for both positive and negative tests; (e) participation in HER2 proficiency testing.
-There are a number of critical factors that can lead to incorrect results if the diagnostic pathologist performing immunohistochemistry is unaware of, or not vigilant about, their influence.
-To ...highlight 3 arenas in which errors may be introduced.
-For choosing the correct primary antibody, selection of the most appropriate antibodies for a given clinical application can be aided by obtaining information from the vendor; however, this can yield incomplete information. There are a number of online databases that have comparisons of antibodies from different vendors, particularly with respect to their use and properties. Reading the published literature can assist in this process, particularly with respect to determining antibody sensitivity and specificity, but it is a daunting task to keep up with all of the immunohistochemistry-related papers published. Finally, Web sites of a number of quality assurance organizations are accessible and can provide a wealth of information comparing the "real world" performance characteristics of different antibodies to the same target protein. False-positive signals can result from a number of factors, including the use of inappropriately high antibody concentration, and "pseudospecific" signal that is in the wrong compartment of the cell. False-negative signal can result from factors such as use of a nonoptimized epitope retrieval method. It is critical that epitope retrieval methods be optimized for each antibody employed in the laboratory.
-By paying attention to these potential problems, the "black box" of diagnostic immunohistochemistry can be made more transparent.
- Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose.
- To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM.
- Pathologists involved in the ...International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with an interest and expertise in the field contributed to this update. Reference material included up-to-date, peer-reviewed publications and textbooks.
- There was discussion and consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) recognition of the key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid MM, (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 employed is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Depending on the morphology, immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers for mesothelial differentiation and for lesions considered in the differential diagnosis. Immunohistochemical markers should 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 and membranous markers). Selected molecular markers are now being used to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations. These guidelines are meant to be a practical diagnostic reference for the pathologist; however, some new pathologic predictors of prognosis and response to therapy are also included.
Therapy with anti-PD-L1 immune check-point inhibitors is approved for several cancers, including advanced urothelial carcinomas. PD-L1 prevalence estimates vary widely in bladder cancer, and lack of ...correlation between expression and clinical outcomes and immunotherapy response may be attributed to methodological differences of the immunohistochemical reagents and procedures. We characterized PD-L1 expression in 235 urothelial carcinomas including 79 matched pairs of primary and metastatic cancers using a panel of four PD-L1 immunoassays in comparison with RNAscope assay using PD-L1-specific probe (CD274). The antibody panel included three FDA-approved clones (22C3 for pembrolizumab, 28.8 for nivolumab, SP142 for atezolizumab), and a commonly used clone E1L3N. Manual scoring of tissue microarrays was performed in each of 235 tumors (624 tissue cores) and compared to an automated image analysis. Expression of PD-L1 in tumor cells by ≥1 marker was detected in 41/142 (28.9%) primary tumors, 13/77 (16.9%) lymph nodes, and 2/16 (12.5%) distant metastases. In positive cases, high PD-L1 expression (>50% cells) was detected in 34.1% primary and 46.7% metastases. Concordant PD-L1 expression status was present in 71/79 (89.9%) cases of matched primary and metastatic urothelial carcinomas. PD-L1 sensitivity ranked from highest to lowest as follows: RNAscope, clone 28.8, 22C3, E1L3N, and SP142. Pairwise concordance correlation coefficients between the four antibodies in 624 tissue cores ranged from 0.76 to 0.9 for tumor cells and from 0.30 to 0.85 for immune cells. RNA and protein expression levels showed moderate to high agreement (0.72-0.87). Intra-tumor expression heterogeneity was low for both protein and RNA assays (interclass correlation coefficients: 0.86-0.94). Manual scores were highly concordant with automated Aperio scores (0.94-0.97). A significant subset of 56/235 (23.8%) urothelial carcinomas stained positive for PD-L1 with high concordance between all four antibodies and RNA ISH assay. Despite some heterogeneity in staining, the overall results are highly concordant suggesting diagnostic equivalence of tested assays.
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.
-Identification of the site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary using immunohistochemistry is a frequent requirement of anatomic pathologists. Diagnostic accuracy is crucial, particularly in ...the current era of targeted therapies and smaller sample sizes.
-To provide practical guidance and suggestions for classifying carcinoma of unknown primary using both proven and new antibodies, as well as targeting panels based on integration of morphologic and clinical features.
-Literature review, the authors' practice experience, and authors' research.
-With well-performed and interpreted immunohistochemistry panels, anatomic pathologists can successfully identify the site of origin of carcinoma of unknown primary. It is crucial to understand not only the diagnostic uses of the many available antibodies but also the potential limits and pitfalls.
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.
This review summarizes the three major breast‐associated markers that can be of assistance in evaluating metastatic carcinomas for which a breast primary diagnosis is entertained. These markers ...include gross cystic disease fluid protein‐15 (GCDFP‐15), mammaglobin, and GATA3. The first two are cytoplasmic markers that show comparable sensitivities for breast cancer, although relatively few of the published studies have employed the same antibodies against the target molecule, making direct comparisons challenging. GATA3 is a nuclear transcription factor that shows superior sensitivity to GCDFP‐15 and mammaglobin. However, the specificity of GATA3 can pose challenges, inasmuch as carcinomas of the bladder and other sites can show significant levels of positivity. Determination of the optimal panel of antibodies employed in a given clinical setting will thus depend on the non‐breast tumours included in the differential diagnosis.
PDF
