Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

New Insights On Diagnostic Reproducibility Of Biphasic Mesotheliomas: A Multi‐Institutional Evaluation By The International Mesothelioma Panel From The MESOPATH Reference Center

F. Sallé, N. Le Stang, A. Nicholson, D. Pissaloux, A. Churg, S. Klebe, V. Roggli, H. Tazelaar, J. Vignaud, R. Attanoos, M. B. Beasley, H. Bégueret, F. Capron, L. Chirieac, M. Copin, S. Dacic, C. Danel, A. Foulet‐Roge, A. Gibbs, S. Giusiano-Courcambeck, K. Hiroshima, V. Hofman, A. N. Husain, K. Kerr, A. Marchevsky, K. Nabeshima, J. Picquenot, I. Rouquette, C. Sagan, J. Sauter, F. Thivolet, W. Travis, M. Tsao, B. Weynand, F. Damiola, A. Scherpereel, J. Pairon, S. Lantuéjoul, V. Rusch, N. Girard
Published 2018 · Medicine

Cite This
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Introduction: The 2015 WHO classification of tumors categorized malignant mesothelioma into epithelioid, biphasic (BMM), and sarcomatoid (SMM) for prognostic relevance and treatment decisions. The survival of BMM is suspected to correlate with the amount of the sarcomatoid component. The criteria for a sarcomatoid component and the interobserver variability between pathologists for identifying this component are not well described. In ambiguous cases, a “transitional” (TMM) subtype has been proposed but was not accepted as a specific subtype in the 2015 WHO classification. The aims of this study were to evaluate the interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of BMM, to determine the nature and the significance of TMM subtype, and to relate the percentage of sarcomatoid component with survival. The value of staining for BRCA‐1‐associated protein (BAP1) and CDKN2A(p16) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were also assessed with respect to each of the tumoral components. Methods: The study was conducted by the International Mesothelioma Panel supported by the French National Cancer Institute, the network of rare cancer (EURACAN) and in collaboration with the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The patient cases include a random group of 42 surgical biopsy samples diagnosed as BMM with evaluation of SMM component by the French Panel of MESOPATH experts was selected from the total series of 971 BMM cases collected from 1998 to 2016. Fourteen international pathologists with expertise in mesothelioma reviewed digitally scanned slides (hematoxylin and eosin – stained and pan‐cytokeratin) without knowledge of prior diagnosis or outcome. Cases with at least 7 of 14 pathologists recognizing TMM features were selected as a TMM group. Demographic, clinical, histopathologic, treatment, and follow‐up data were retrieved from the MESOBANK database. BAP1 (clone C‐4) loss and CDKN2A(p16) homozygous deletion (HD) were assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and FISH, respectively. Kappa statistics were applied for interobserver agreement and multivariate analysis with Cox regression adjusted for age and gender was performed for survival analysis. Results: The 14 panelists recorded a total of 544 diagnoses. The interobserver correlation was moderate (weighted Kappa = 0.45). Of the cases originally classified as BMM by MESOPATH, the reviewers agreed in 71% of cases (385 of 544 opinions), with cases classified as pure epithelioid in 17% (93 of 544), and pure sarcomatoid in 12% (66 of 544 opinions). Diagnosis of BMM was made on morphology or IHC alone in 23% of the cases and with additional assessment of IHC in 77% (402 of 544). The median overall survival (OS) of the 42 BMM cases was 8 months. The OS for BMM was significantly different from SMM and epithelioid malignant mesothelioma (p < 0.0001). In BMM, a sarcomatoid component of less than 80% correlated with a better survival (p = 0.02). There was a significant difference in survival between BMM with TMM showing a median survival at 6 months compared to 12 months for those without TMM (p < 0.0001). BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 42) of the total cases and in both components in 26%. We also compared the TMM group to that of more aggressive patterns of epithelioid subtypes of mesothelioma (solid and pleomorphic of our large MESOPATH cohort). The curve of transitional type was persistently close to the OS curve of the sarcomatoid component. The group of sarcomatoid, transitional, and pleomorphic mesothelioma were very close to each other. We then considered the contribution of BAP1 immunostaining and loss of CDKN2A(p16) by FISH. BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 41) of the total cases and in both component in 27% of the cases (11 of 41). There was no significant difference in BAP1 loss between the TMM and non‐TMM groups. HD CDKN2A(p16) was detected in 74% of the total cases with no significant difference between the TMM and non‐TMM groups. In multivariate analysis, TMM morphology was an indicator of poor prognosis with a hazard ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.6 – 8.0; and p = 0.003 even when compared to the presence of HD CDKN2A(p16) on sarcomatoid component (hazard ratio = 4.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 – 16.3, p = 0.02). Conclusions: The interobserver concordance among the international mesothelioma and French mesothelioma panel suggests clinical utility for an updated definition of biphasic mesothelioma that allows better stratification of patients into risk groups for treatment decisions, systemic anticancer therapy, or selection for surgery or palliation. We also have shown the usefulness of FISH detection of CDKN2A(p16) HD compared to BAP1 loss on the spindle cell component for the separation in ambiguous cases between benign florid stromal reaction from true sarcomatoid component of biphasic mesothelioma. Taken together our results further validate the concept of transitional pattern as a poor prognostic indicator.
This paper references
Second or 3 line nivolumab (Nivo) versus Nivo plus ipilimumab (Ipi) in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients: results of IFCT-1501 MAPS2 randomized phase II trial
A Scherpereel (2017)
Introduction to The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus, and Heart.
W. Travis (2015)
Anti‐mesothelial markers in sarcomatoid mesothelioma and other spindle cell neoplasms
R. Attanoos (2000)
The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
J. Landis (1977)
Sarcomatoid mesothelioma: a clinical–pathologic correlation of 326 cases
S. Klebe (2010)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy of malignant pleural mesothelioma with or without hemithoracic radiotherapy (SAKK 17/04): a randomised, international, multicentre phase 2 trial.
R. Stahel (2015)
Diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry in distinguishing between epithelioid pleural mesotheliomas and breast carcinomas: a comparative study.
N. Ordóñez (2014)
Imaging of mesothelioma.
R. Gill (2011)
World Health Organization Committee for Tumors of the Pleura . The
F Galateau-Salle (2015)
New Markers for Separating Benign From Malignant Mesothelial Proliferations: Are We There Yet?
A. Churg (2016)
Cancer antigen profiling for malignant pleural mesothelioma immunotherapy: expression and coexpression of mesothelin, cancer antigen 125, and Wilms tumor 1
Takashi Eguchi (2017)
Expression of PAX8 in Normal and Neoplastic Tissues: A Comprehensive Immunohistochemical Study
D. Tacha (2011)
A nuclear grading system is a strong predictor of survival in epitheloid diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma
Kyuichi Kadota (2012)
Differential diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma from true sarcoma and sarcomatoid carcinoma using immunohistochemistry
K. Kushitani (2008)
Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma 2017 Update of the Consensus Statement From the International Mesothelioma Interest Group.
A. Husain (2018)
BAP1 Immunohistochemistry and p16 FISH in the Diagnosis of Sarcomatous and Desmoplastic Mesotheliomas
H. Hwang (2016)
BAP1 facilitates diagnostic objectivity, classification, and prognostication in malignant pleural mesothelioma.
Stephanie M. McGregor (2015)
Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin or Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin for Chemonaïve Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Results of the International Expanded Access Program
A. Santoro (2008)
Novel MR Imaging Applications for Pleural evaluation.
R. Gill (2015)
PD-L1 Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Mesothelioma: For Want of Anything Better?
S. Lantuéjoul (2017)
Value of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of pleural sarcomatoid mesothelioma from lung sarcomatoid carcinoma
Y. Takeshima (2009)
Tumors of the Serosal Membranes
A. Churg (2006)
GATA3 Immunohistochemistry for Distinguishing Sarcomatoid and Desmoplastic Mesothelioma From Sarcomatoid Carcinoma of the Lung
Kyra B. Berg (2017)
Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma in the Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial
G. Zalcman (2016)
Usefulness of p16/CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization and BAP1 immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of biphasic mesothelioma.
D. Wu (2017)
Histopathologic features predict survival in diffuse pleural malignant mesothelioma on pleural biopsies
C. Habougit (2017)
The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Pleura: Advances since the 2004 Classification.
F. Galateau-Sallé (2016)
FriessM,KestenholzP, etal.Anewprognostic score supporting treatment allocation for multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a review of 12 years’ experience
I Opitz (2015)
The Separation of Benign and Malignant Mesothelial Proliferations
A. Churg (2012)
p16 Deletion in sarcomatoid tumors of the lung and pleura.
N. Tochigi (2013)
Second or 3 rd line nivolumab ( Nivo ) versus Nivo plus ipilimumab ( Ipi ) in malignant pleural mesothelioma ( MPM ) patients : results of IFCT - 1501 MAPS 2 randomized phase II trial
A Scherpereel (2017)
BAP1 Immunohistochemistry and p16 FISH to Separate Benign From Malignant Mesothelial Proliferations
B. Sheffield (2015)
Dataset for Reporting of Malignant Mesothelioma of the Pleura or Peritoneum: Recommendations From the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR).
A. Churg (2016)
Trimodality strategy for treating malignant pleural mesothelioma: results of a feasibility study of induction pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy and postoperative hemithoracic radiation (Japan Mesothelioma Interest Group 0601 Trial)
S. Hasegawa (2015)
Comprehensive genomic analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma identifies recurrent mutations, gene fusions and splicing alterations
R. Bueno (2016)
BAP1 (BRCA1-associated protein 1) is a highly specific marker for differentiating mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial proliferations
Marta Cigognetti (2015)
Anewprognostic score supporting treatment allocation for multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma : a review of 12 years ’ experience
FriessM Opitz I (2015)
Sarcomatoid mesothelioma and its histological mimics: a comparative immunohistochemical study
D. Lucas (2003)
High SUVmax on FDG-PET Indicates Pleomorphic Subtype in Epithelioid Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Supportive Evidence to Reclassify Pleomorphic as Nonepithelioid Histology
Kyuichi Kadota (2012)
The differential diagnosis between pleural sarcomatoid mesothelioma and spindle cell/pleomorphic (sarcomatoid) carcinomas of the lung: evidence-based guidelines from the International Mesothelioma Panel and the MESOPATH National Reference Center.
A. Marchevsky (2017)
Malignant mesothelioma with heterologous elements: clinicopathological correlation of 27 cases and literature review
S. Klebe (2008)
Malignant mesothelioma of the pleura with pleomorphic features: a series of 44 cases
F Galateau Salle (2010)
World Health Organization classi fi cation of tumors of the pleura : advances since the 2004 Classi fi cation
S Lantuejoul (2016)
Expression of mesothelial markers in malignant mesotheliomas: an immunohistochemical evaluation of 173 cases.
I. Soomro (2005)
Immune biomarkers PD-1/PD-L1 and TLR3 in malignant pleural mesotheliomas.
Christelle Combaz-Lair (2016)
Chemotherapy and targeted therapies for unresectable malignant mesothelioma.
R. Kelly (2011)
A New Prognostic Score Supporting Treatment Allocation for Multimodality Therapy for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Review of 12 Years’ Experience
I. Opitz (2015)
Pleomorphic Epithelioid Diffuse Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Clinicopathological Review and Conceptual Proposal to Reclassify as Biphasic or Sarcomatoid Mesothelioma
Kyuichi Kadota (2011)

This paper is referenced by
The Molecular Basis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.
Benjamin Wadowski (2020)
Deep Sequencing Analysis Identified a Specific Subset of Mutations Distinctive of Biphasic Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma
F. Torricelli (2020)
La pathologie cancéreuse pulmonaire à l’heure de l’intelligence artificielle : entre espoir, désespoir et perspectives
S. Heeke (2019)
Transitional Mesothelioma and Artificial Intelligence: Do We Need One More Subtype? and Do We Need Computers to Identify Them?
M. Carbone (2020)
Comprehensive molecular and pathological evaluation of transitional mesothelioma assisted by deep learning approach: a multi institutional study of the International Mesothelioma Panel from MESOPATH Reference Center.
Francoise Galateau Salle (2020)
Multimodality treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma
L. Berzenji (2018)
Interobserver variation in the assessment of the sarcomatoid and transitional components in biphasic mesotheliomas
S. Dacic (2019)
Localized malignant mesothelioma, an unusual and poorly characterized neoplasm of serosal origin: best current evidence from the literature and the International Mesothelioma Panel
A. Marchevsky (2019)
Refining classification of malignant pleural mesothelioma reveals its Achilles’ heel
I. Pateras (2019)
Pathological discrepancies in the diagnosis of thymic epithelial tumors: the Tallinn-Lyon experience.
K. Oselin (2019)
Mesothelioma in children and adolescents: the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Rumors (EXPeRT) contribution.
D. Orbach (2020)
EURACAN/IASLC proposals for updating the histologic classification of pleural mesothelioma: towards a more multidisciplinary approach.
A. Nicholson (2019)
On the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma: A necropsy-based study of 171 cases (1997–2016)
E. Pira (2019)
Multimodality treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma
Schil (2019)
Deep learning-based classification of mesothelioma improves prediction of patient outcome
Pierre Courtiol (2019)
Diagnosis of Mesothelioma.
D. R. Fels Elliott (2020)
Mesothelioma: Scientific clues for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy
M. Carbone (2019)
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Genetic and Microenviromental Heterogeneity as an Unexpected Reading Frame and Therapeutic Challenge
D. M. Abbott (2020)
Update on the pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.
J. Schulte (2020)
Application of immunohistochemistry in diagnosis and management of malignant mesothelioma.
D. Chapel (2020)
Redefining malignant pleural mesothelioma types as a continuum uncovers immune-vascular interactions
N. Alcala (2019)
Clinical significance of histologic subtyping of malignant pleural mesothelioma.
L. Brčić (2020)
P53-regulated miR-320a targets PDL1 and is downregulated in malignant mesothelioma
C. Costa (2020)
Asbestos conceives Fe(II)-dependent mutagenic stromal milieu through ceaseless macrophage ferroptosis and β-catenin induction in mesothelium
F. Ito (2020)
Comparative analysis of prognostic histopathologic parameters in subtypes of epithelioid pleural mesothelioma
Ágnes Bilecz (2020)
Iron addiction with ferroptosis‐resistance in asbestos‐induced mesothelial carcinogenesis: Toward the era of mesothelioma prevention
S. Toyokuni (2019)
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar