Re-evaluation of histological diagnoses of malignant mesothelioma by immunohistochemistry

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order to provide reliable tissue material for malignant mesothelioma (MM) studies, we re-evaluated biopsies and autopsy material from 61 patients with a diagnosis of MM from the period of 1980-2002.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Basic positive (Calretinin, EMA, Podoplanin, Mesothelin) and negative (CEA, Ber-Ep4) immunohistochemical (IHC) marker reactions were determined. If needed, more markers were used. Histological diagnoses were made by three pathologists. Survival data were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>49 cases (80%) were considered being MM by a high degree of likelihood, five more cases possible MM. Of the remaining seven cases, three were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma, three as pleomorphic lung carcinoma, in one peritoneal case a clear entity diagnosis could not be given. One of the possible MM cases and two of the lung carcinoma cases had this already as primary diagnoses, but were registered as MM.</p> <p>With a sensitivity of 100%, Calretinin and CEA were the most reliable single markers. The amount of MM cells with positive immunoreactivity (IR) for Podoplanin and Mesothelin showed most reliable inverse relation to the degree of atypia.</p> <p>In the confirmed MM cases, there had been applied either no IHC or between one and 18 markers.</p> <p>The cases not confirmed by us had either lacked IHC (n = 1), non-specific markers were used (n = 4), IR was different (n = 1), or specific markers had not shown positive IR in the right part of the tumour cells (n = 3).</p> <p>46 of the 49 confirmed and three of the not confirmed cases had been diagnosed by us as most likely MM before IHC was carried out.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In order to use archival tissue material with an earlier MM diagnosis for studies, histopathological re-evaluation is important. In possible sarcomatous MM cases without any positive IR for positive MM markers, radiology and clinical picture are essential parts of diagnostics. IHC based on a panel of two positive and two negative MM markers has to be adapted to the differential diagnostic needs in each single case. New diagnostic tools and techniques are desirable for cases where IHC and other established methods cannot provide a clear entity diagnosis, and in order to improve MM treatment.</p

Systematic assessment of HER2/neu in gynecologic neoplasms, an institutional experience

BACKGROUND: HER2/neu overexpression and/or amplification has been widely studied in a number of solid tumors, primarily in the breast. In gynecologic neoplasms, determination of HER2/neu status has not been well studied as a predictive biomarker in anti-HER2/neu treatment. METHODS: We systematically evaluated the HER2/neu reactions by immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization in malignant gynecologic neoplasms as experienced in our institution. RESULTS: The HER2/neu overexpression or amplification occurred in 8 % of the cancers of the gynecological organs in our series. Majority of the HER2/neu overexpression and/or amplification occurred in clear cell (27 %) and serous (11 %) carcinomas. HER2/neu positivity was also seen in undifferentiated as well as in mixed clear cell and serous carcinomas. Discordant IHC and FISH results (positive by FISH but not IHC) was seen in 2 cases. Majority of the HER2/neu overexpression and/or amplification occurs in the endometrium rather than the ovary. Heterogeneity of the HER2/neu by IHC staining was in < 2 % of the tumors in our series. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the HER2/neu studies on Müllerian carcinomas of clear cell, serous, and undifferentiated types, particularly when they arise in the endometrium. Since there are some discordant IHC/FISH results, we also propose performing the HER2/neu testing by FISH when the IHC score is less than 3 +