Malignant mesothelioma eight years after a diagnosis of atypical mesothelial hyperplasia

The separation of mesothelial hyperplasia from early malignant mesothelioma remains one of the most difficult problems in histopathology. Inconclusive cases are termed "atypical mesothelial hyperplasia" and treated expectantly. A 49 year old male pipeline engineer was diagnosed as having atypical mesothelial hyperplasia in appendiceal serosa by the US-Canadian Mesothelioma Panel. Eight years later, he developed overtly malignant peritoneal and pleural mesothelioma. In hindsight, histological similarities between the diffuse malignant mesothelioma and the atypical mesothelial proliferation suggested malignancy from the outset. The most important of these features were the degree of mesothelial proliferation, micronodularity, architectural complexity, superficial invasion, uniform mild cytological atypia, and the absence of a clinical cause for a benign mesothelial proliferation. Ancillary investigations including immunohistochemistry were of no benefit in determining whether the atypical mesothelial hyperplasia was benign or malignant. Careful histological examination remains the mainstay of the diagnosis of early mesothelioma.     

The use of histological and immunohistochemical markers to distinguish pleural malignant mesothelioma and in situ mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and reactive pleural fibrosis.

Distinguishing malignant mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and reactive fibrosis can be a diagnostic problem in small pleural biopsies, made more difficult by the recent recognition of mesothelioma-in-situ. Antibodies to epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), p53, and bcl-2 have all been advocated for differentiating reactive from neoplastic conditions, but reports are inconsistent. These antibodies have therefore been applied to 31 cases of malignant mesothelioma, 34 cases of reactive pleural disease (20 reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and 14 reactive pleural fibrosis) and four small biopsies that were initially coded as suspicious, from patients who later developed frank mesothelioma. Thirty out of 31 (97 per cent) cases of mesothelioma showed positive nuclear staining for p53, with a higher incidence of positivity in epithelioid than in sarcomatoid elements and 30/31 (97 per cent) showed diffuse linear membrane staining for EMA, again more intense in the epithelioid elements. No mesothelioma was positive for bcl-2. In seven cases that contained both in situ and invasive mesothelioma, the in situ elements showed similar staining patterns to the invasive epithelioid elements. Thirteen out of 20 (65 per cent) cases of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia showed occasional nuclear positivity for p53 and 5/20 (25 per cent) cases showed focal weak membrane staining for EMA. Three out of 14 (21 per cent) cases of reactive pleural fibrosis showed positive nuclear staining for p53 and 6/14 (43 per cent) cases showed focal membrane staining with EMA. No reactive cases stained for bcl-2. All four suspicious cases showed diffuse linear staining with EMA and three showed focal staining for p53. It is concluded that strong diffuse linear staining for EMA is a good marker of malignancy when differentiating epithelioid malignant mesothelioma and mesothelioma-in-situ from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, although weak focal staining may occur in reactive conditions. Nuclear staining for p53 is also suggestive of epithelioid mesothelioma, but should be regarded as no more than suspicious. The antibodies used in this investigation are less helpful in differentiating sarcomatoid mesothelioma from reactive pleural fibrosis.     

Assessment of cell cycle state may facilitate the histopathological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

AIMS: The differentiation of benign pleural conditions from malignant mesothelioma may be difficult, especially with a small biopsy. We have tested the hypothesis that assessment of the cell cycle status is of value in the histopathological diagnosis of such biopsies, by comparing 33 malignant mesotheliomas with 36 cases of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and reactive pleural fibrosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Biopsies were investigated for proliferative status by immunostaining for a novel antibody, MCM2, all of which showed nuclear expression of MCM2 at higher frequency than Ki67 (P < 0.0001). Counts in areas of maximum tumour staining showed significantly higher labelling indices (LIMax) in epithelioid and sarcomatoid mesotheliomas compared with reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and reactive pleural fibrosis (P < 0.0001 for both). Average counts (LIAve) revealed a significant increase in epithelioid mesothelioma compared with reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We consider MCM2 to be a useful adjunct in the differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma.     

β-catenin expression in benign and malignant pleural disorders

Benign and malignant pleural processes display a large and overlapping spectrum of morphological appearances, and can be difficult to distinguish, histologically, from each other. β-catenin, a participant in the wingless-type (Wnt) transduction pathway, is involved in the pathogenesis of malignant mesothelioma and has received limited evaluation for its ability to serve as a diagnostic aid for distinguishing between individual pleural disorders. We performed immunohistochemistry for β-catenin on 10 pleural malignant mesotheliomas, 10 examples of mesothelial hyperplasia and 18 cases of organizing pleuritis. Although differences were noted in staining intensity between the mesothelioma and mesothelial hyperplasia groups, extensiveness and cellular location were similar. Staining intensity (mean +/- s.d.) in mesotheliomas (2.00 +/- 0.67) was significantly less intense than in mesothelial hyperplasia cases (3.00 +/- 0.00) (p=0.0005). Stromal cell staining was cytoplasmic in all cases, and endothelial cell staining was membranous, submembranous and cytoplasmic. Nuclear expression of β-catenin was not observed in any of the cases studied. This lack of nuclear staining in the stromal cells of organizing pleuritis differs markedly from the previously reported high frequencies of nuclear β-catenin expression in other pleural spindle cell proliferations (desmoid tumors and solitary fibrous tumors). In summary, the current study adds to previous work indicating a role for β-catenin in the genesis of pleural conditions including organizing pleuritis, mesothelial hyperplasia and malignant mesothelioma. Although IHC for β-catenin does not appear to be conclusive for separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations, it may be valuable for assisting in the differential diagnosis of mesothelial and spindle cell proliferations in the pleura.     

Exfoliative cytology of diffuse mesothelioma

The exfoliative cytology of 14 diffuse mesothelioma (11 pleural and three peritoneal) is described. Malignant cells were identified in 10 patients; in eight malignant cells still retaining the characteristics of mesothelial cells were found. It is suggested that only if malignant cells of this type are recognized should the probable diagnosis of diffuse mesothelioma be made.     

'Pseudomesotheliomatous' carcinomas of the pleura: a 10-year analysis of cases from the Environmental Lung Disease Research Group, Cardiff

AIMS: To undertake a clinicopathological study of diffuse serosal neoplasms of epithelial histogenesis which clinically and pathologically mimic malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS AND RESULTS: Over a 10-year (1990-2000) study period 53 carcinomas mimicking diffuse pleural mesothelioma ('pseudomesotheliomatous' carcinoma) were identified. The study group comprised 50 men and three females, age range 33-77 (median 68) years. In 46 (87%) cases there was a history of smoking and in 40 (76%) cases a history of asbestos exposure. Histologically the pleural 'pseudomesotheliomatous' carcinomas could be divided into two broad groups: primary pulmonary carcinomas with florid pleurotropic growth (n = 47), of which 34 (70%) were adenocarcinomas; and diffuse carcinomatous involvement of the pleura by metastatic tumour (n = 6). This latter group comprised two transitional cell carcinomas of bladder, one renal (clear) cell carcinoma, one ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma, one prostatic adenocarcinoma and one squamous cell carcinoma of parotid gland origin. Follow-up data were available in 35 cases. Regardless of tumour type, survival was poor (median 8 months) and comparable to diffuse pleural mesothelioma. CONCLUSIONS: Pleural 'pseudomesotheliomatous' carcinomas are uncommon (comprising 6% of referrals), pathologically heterogeneous tumours with poor prognosis. Tissue diagnosis should be obtained in all cases of suspected diffuse pleural neoplasia. By light microscopy and immunophenotype many of the tumours mimicked malignant mesothelioma. In particular, an awareness that all neoplasms exhibiting squamous differentiation may express cytokeratin 5/6 and thrombomodulin is important to prevent misinterpretation. In this respect, calretinin is regarded as the most specific and sensitive mesothelial marker. Misdiagnosis may have medico-legal implications in asbestos-related compensation claims.     

Cell-block immunocytochemical characterization of effusions. Use of antibody panel: calretinin, Ber-EP4, keratin and CD68

An anticorpal panel formed by Calretinin, Ber-EP4, Keratin and CD 68 has been applied to differentiate mesothelial hyperplasia/mesothelioma from metastastic carcinoma in cavity effusions. The study was performed in 86 cases in which paraffinated cell-blocks were obtained. All cases positive for malignancy had histological confirmation. The series included 2 malignant mesothelioma, 54 reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, and 30 metastatic carcinoma. All cases of reactive mesothelial showed strong cytoplasmatic positivity for Calretinin, and hyperplasia negativity for Ber-EP4. The 2 cases of mesothelioma were positive for Calretinin and negative for Ber-EP4. In contrast, all cases of metastatic carcinoma had membrane or cytoplasmatic positivity for Ber-EP4. The sensitivity (100%) and specificity (100%) of reactivity for Calretinin and Ber-EP4 showed that the immunocytochemical results on paraffin embedded material from cavity effusions are very reliable, so that the tested immunocytochemical panel can be useful in cytological differential diagnosis between reactive mesothelial hyperplasia/mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma.     

Value of immunocytochemistry in the study of malignant effusions

Recognition of malignant effusion relies heavily on cytologic examination despite the difficulty of distinguishing atypical mesothelial hyperplasia from metastatic carcinoma. The combination of CEA, EMA, vimentin, keratin, high-molecular-weight cytokeratin (HMWK), low-molecular-weight cytokeratin (LMWK), and Alcian blue was tested in 51 cytologic specimens of pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial effusions. These showed metastatic carcinoma in 38 cases (ovary, 14; lung, 8; breast, 7; GI, 4; endometrium, 4; bladder, 1) and mesothelial processes in 13 (hyperplasia, 9; mesothelioma, 4). Strong positivity for EMA (92%), CEA (90%), and Alcian blue (71%) was noted in metastatic carcinoma but not in the mesothelial processes. Keratin was positive in all cases of mesothelioma but occurred also in mesothelial hyperplasias (44%) and metastatic carcinomas (47%). In mesothelial cells, HMWK was consistently stronger than LMWK, whereas in adenocarcinoma the reverse was true. There was no difference in the degree or distribution of positivity of any of the markers among the various primary sites of the neoplasms. Our findings are consistent with the view that immunocytochemistry with a battery of antibodies is useful in the recognition of malignant effusions but cannot, as yet, determine the site of origin of metastatic neoplasms.     

Primary diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma by fine-needle aspiration of a supraclavicular lymph node

Malignant mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm with poor prognosis. The pleural form is defined as a malignant tumor of mesothelial cells with a diffuse growth pattern involving the visceral and parietal surfaces of the pleura. To our knowledge, there have only been two reported cases in the literature where fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of a lymph node was the primary mode of diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. We describe a 40-yr-old male in whom the primary diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma was made by FNA of a supraclavicular lymph node. The mesothelial origin of the tumor was confirmed with immunohistochemical studies. A pleural biopsy immediately preceding the FNA was interpreted as chronic inflammation. Most patients with clinically documented lymph node metastases of malignant mesothelioma have had a previously established diagnosis of mesothelioma. Our case demonstrates that FNA can be a simple and invaluable method of diagnosis in those unusual cases where diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma has not already been made before lymphadenopathy.     

Synchronous pulmonary carcinoma and pleural diffuse malignant mesothelioma

Synchronous pulmonary carcinoma and pleural diffuse malignant mesothelioma is rare. Cases from the archives of 2 large referral centers were reviewed to identify cases of synchronously occurring pulmonary carcinoma and pleural diffuse malignant mesothelioma. Three cases of synchronous pulmonary carcinoma and pleural diffuse malignant mesothelioma were identified from more than 16,000 pleuropulmonary cases and were reviewed for demographic, clinical, radiographic, histologic, and immunohistochemical findings. The patients were men who were 63, 67, and 77 years old. Two had positive smoking histories; the smoking history of the other patient is unknown. One patient had a positive history of asbestos exposure; one patient had no history of asbestos exposure; and one patient's history of asbestos exposure is unknown. The patients underwent surgery for treatment of adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed preoperatively. Two of the adenocarcinomas were of a predominantly bronchioloalveolar pattern. No diffuse malignant mesothelioma was identified preoperatively. Diffuse malignant mesothelioma was suspected on the basis of pleural involvement by tumor with histology differing from that of the adenocarcinoma. Tumor immunostaining supported the diagnoses. The average survival after diagnosis was 6 weeks or less. In summary, the paucity of cases at 2 large referral centers and the paucity of cases reported in the English language literature highlights the rarity of synchronous pulmonary carcinoma and pleural diffuse malignant mesothelioma. These synchronous neoplasms occur in patients who have risk factors for both neoplasms independently. Length of survival following diagnosis is bleak.     

Distinguishing benign mesothelial hyperplasia from neoplasia: a practical approach

This paper examines the spectrum of challenges that confront the diagnostic surgical pathologist in distinguishing benign mesothelial hyperplasia from malignant mesothelioma. The current state of the art with respect to the morphological, immunohistological, and molecular features that can assist in the evaluation of benign and malignant pleural disease is examined. Practical guidelines are offered that should reduce the risk of diagnostic error in this problematic area of surgical pathology.     

Praktische Differenzialdiagnose präneoplastischer Veränderungen der Pleura und früher mesothelialer Neoplasien

The morphological diagnosis of small mesothelial lesions in pleural biopsies is gaining importance in view of more aggressive, multimodal therapeutic options and of medicolegal aspects if a malignant mesothelioma is diagnosed. We present a light microscopically and immunohistochemically based morphological classification for the planning of further clinical follow-up procedures. A reactive mesothelial hyperplasia heals without scars. Mesothelial inclusions in pleuritic scars are common in recurrent pleuritis and must not be confused with an epithelioid component of a desmoplastic mesothelioma. In case of atypical mesothelial proliferations, further diagnostic procedures have to be performed to obtain a clear diagnosis of malignancy. Mesothelioma in situ is the first morphological step in neoplastic mesothelial changes, also with regard to medicolegal aspects for the unambiguous diagnosis of a mesothelioma. Early infiltrative growth is characteristic of so called early mesothelioma. A useful immunohistochemical panel for the differential diagnosis consists of anti-cytokeratin, Ck 5/6, calretinin, EMA and MiB-1, whereas the immunohistochemical detection of telomerase is not helpful.     

Benign pleural lesions and malignant mesothelioma

Summary In a series of eighteen diffuse malignant mesotheliomas, five cases were encountered in which thoracic surgery with benign nontumorous diagnosis preceded the development of a malignant mesothelioma by several years. The morphological findings in three of these five cases are compared with the morphology of the tumor specimens and an attempt is made to recognize the earliest possible malignant features. Crowding of mesothelial cells, their variability in size and nuclear hyperchromatism are pointed out as warning signs.In relation to these findings, the histogenetic significance of predominantly fibroproliferative versus epithelial-like pleural lesions is discussed. A histogenetic classification, based on the studies of eighteen diffuse malignant mesotheliomas, two benign fibrous mesotheliomas, one pleural fibrosarcoma, and numerous pleural plaques as well as reactive mesothelial lesions, is offered. The therapeutic aspects are mentioned.     

Mesothelial cell inclusions in pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes: a clinicopathologic analysis

Benign lymph node inclusions are commonly encountered during surgery for gynecologic neoplasms and are potential mimics of metastatic tumor. The presence of mesothelial cell inclusions in pelvic lymph nodes is extremely rare. We report the clinicopathologic features of 10 patients with ovarian tumors and mesothelial cell inclusions detected in the sinuses of pelvic and paraaortic lymph nodes. All patients had concurrent massive ascites and mesothelial cell hyperplasia at the time of lymph node dissection. Histologically, nodal mesothelial cells were identified predominantly within the subcapsular, trabecular and medullary sinuses. Moreover, intra- and extranodal lymphatics also contained mesothelial cells, confirming their mode of lymphatic transport to nodal sinuses. This finding, together with mesothelial cell hyperplasia and massive ascites suggest that mesothelial cells derive from reactive serosal mesothelium and are dislodged into draining lymphatics. This study indicated the pathogenic significance of the lymphatic transport mechanism. Nodal mesothelial cell inclusions should be distinguished from metastatic tumor to avoid inaccurate staging in a patient with a known tumor or the false negative diagnosis of an occult primary tumor. Recognition of this entity by immunohistochemical evaluation in addition to routinely stained sections is important to prevent a diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma or malignant mesothelioma.     

Morphologische Diagnostik maligner Pleuramesotheliome

The World Health Organization (WHO) classification differentiates between pleural tumors of mesothelial and mesenchymal origin as well as lymphoproliferative disorders, with malignant mesotheliomas forming the most common pleural primary tumor. Histologically, epithelioid (40–60?%), sarcomatoid (20–40?%), and biphasic mesotheliomas (20–40?%) are distinguished. The certain morphological diagnosis of a malignant pleural mesothelioma requires the establishment of mesothelial differentiation by means of an appropriate panel of antibodies to exclude pleural dissemination of a pulmonary or extrapulmonary epithelial malignancy and also requires the establishment of at least focal invasive growth to distinguish from reactive mesothelial proliferation. The exclusion of a malignant pleural mesothelioma may induce further differential diagnostic considerations, e. g. concerning the assignment to a certain primary tumor after the establishment of carcinomatous pleuritis.     

Cytopathologic differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial cells: A logistic regression analysis

Distinguishing malignant mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial proliferation in both cytologic and surgical pathologic specimens is often a diagnostic challenge. Conventional cytomorphologic assessment is an important step in the differential diagnosis of these entities.The pleural effusion cytologies from 40 cases of malignant mesothelioma, 40 cases of adenocarcinoma and 30 cases of reactive mesothelial proliferation diagnosed between 1997 and 2007 were reviewed. Twenty-seven cytologic features which are regarded as useful in the differential diagnosis of mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and benign mesothelial proliferation were assessed. These cytologic features were subjected to a stepwise logistic regression analysis. Three features were selected to distinguish malignant mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma: giant atypical mesothelial cell (P = 0.0001), nuclear pleomorphism (P = 0.0001) and acinar structures (P = 0.0001), the latter two being characteristics of adenocarcinoma. The variables selected to differentiate malignant mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial cells were: cell ball formation (P = 0.0001), cell in cell engulfment (P = 0.0001) and monolayer cell groups (P = 0.0001), the latter being a feature of benign mesothelial proliferation. When these selected variables were subjected to a stepwise logistic regression analysis, the logistic model correctly predicted 90% of cases of benign mesothelial proliferation versus 97.5% of malignant mesothelioma and 92.5% of malignant mesothelioma versus 92.5% of adenocarcinoma.Conventional cytomorphologic assessment is the first step to establish an accurate diagnosis in pleural effusions. Several cytologic features have predictive value to separate malignant mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma and reactive mesothelial proliferation.     

Immunocytochemistry of malignant mesothelioma: OV632 as a marker of malignant mesothelioma.

In pleural or ascitic effusions the cytomorphological distinction of adenocarcinoma cells, reactive mesothelial cells, and malignant mesothelioma cells often causes a diagnostic dilemma. The value of immunocytochemistry was investigated on cytological smears of 24 well-established cases of malignant mesothelioma, a selected series of 31 metastatic adenocarcinomas, and 20 smears of patients without known malignancy. In these smears we scored the immunoreactivity with a panel of four monoclonal antibodies. In addition to antibodies for epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), the monoclonal antibody MOC31 and the ovarian carcinoma specific antibody OV632 were incorporated in the panel. With none of these four antibodies was immunostaining of reactive mesothelial cells found. CEA- and MOC31-positive tumour cells were frequent in metastatic adenocarcinomas, but occurred rarely in malignant mesotheliomas. EMA-positive tumour cells were found in all metastatic adenocarcinomas (100 per cent) and in most malignant mesotheliomas (83 per cent). In addition to the expected reactivity of OV632 with ovarian carcinomas, 22 of 24 malignant mesotheliomas contained immunopositive tumour cells, while only a small proportion of non-ovarian adenocarcinomas reacted with this antibody. This selective staining of malignant mesothelioma cells, but not reactive mesothelial cells, with OV632 now permits the positive identification of malignant mesothelioma cells in male patients.     

p53 immunostaining in the distinction between benign and malignant mesothelial proliferations using formalin-fixed paraffin sections.

The distinction between reactive mesothelium and mesothelioma in pleural biopsy specimens is notoriously difficult, and conventional immunohistochemical markers have provided no relief. The object of this study was to examine the frequency of immunohistochemically detectable p53 overexpression in routinely processed, paraffin-embedded tissue from pleural mesotheliomas and from pleura showing reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, using a polyclonal antibody to formalin-resistant p53 epitopes, and to consider the diagnostic utility of this antibody in the distinction between mesothelioma and reactive mesothelium in pleural biopsy specimens. Immunostaining was enhanced by pepsin predigestion prior to the application of the primary antibody. Positivity occurred in 10/16 epithelial mesotheliomas, 9/19 biphasic mesotheliomas, 2/12 sarcomatous mesotheliomas but in none of 20 reactive pleura. Immunostaining was particularly intense in some of the biopsy specimens, which may be due to the rapidity with which these small pieces of tissue were fixed. In conclusion, this study suggests that p53 immunostaining can help to distinguish epithelial or biphasic mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded pleural biopsy specimens.     

Osteosarcoma pleural effusion: A diagnostic challenge with some cytologic hints

Pleural effusions can be the first manifestation, recurrence, or metastasis of small round cell sarcomas in children. The most common are Ewing sarcoma, neuroblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma. The cytomorphology is variable, the cells can be cohesive, single cells, small or large, morphologically mimicking lymphomas, carcinomas, melanomas, and mesothelioma depending on the sarcoma involved. Osteosarcomas are rare. Their rarity, variable histomorphologic features, immunophenotypic heterogeneity, being of osseous or extraosseous origin and focality of malignant osteoid matrix make their cytologic recognition a diagnostic challenge. They can be confused with small round cell sarcomas, may be misinterpreted as degenerative inflammatory cells, or masked by florid reactive mesothelial hyperplasia particularly in pleural effusions. However, attention to certain cytomorphologic features in smears and cellblock sections should raise suspicion. We report a case of a 9‐year‐old child who presented with cough, chest pain and breathing difficulty, left pleural effusion, a collapsed consolidated lower lung lobe, and a clinical impression of pneumonia. Pleural fluid cytology was initially reported as inflammatory effusion with florid reactive mesothelial hyperplasia. Tissue biopsy of the lung mass showed histomorphologic features consistent with osteosarcoma. A careful look at the cytology materials and cellblock sections showed helpful cytomorphologic features that were masked by florid reactive mesothelial cells and misinterpreted as degenerative inflammatory lymphocytes. An extracellular matrix was a helpful hint. Malignant pleural effusion secondary to osteosarcoma is rare. Cytologic examination may help reach the correct diagnosis if the smears and cellblock sections are carefully evaluated for certain helpful cytomorphologic features, particularly osteoid matrix.     

Combined use of novel epithelial (MOC-31) and mesothelial (HBME-1) immunohistochemical markers for optimal first line diagnostic distinction between mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma in pleura

AIMS: To determine the value of immunohistochemistry in differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma from carcinoma in a pleural biopsy we optimized a double panel of MOC-31 and HBME-1 and compared the results with others from the literature. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multi-antibody panel was applied to biopsy samples from 44 cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma and 23 cases of carcinoma metastatic to the pleura. We used monoclonal antibodies against keratins, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), epithelial antigen Ber-EP4, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), tumour-associated glycoprotein (B72.3), LeuM1, vimentin, desmin, epithelial related antigen (MOC-31) and mesothelial cell (HBME-1). Positivity for MOC-31 and Ber-EP4 was found to have the highest nosologic sensitivity (94.1% and 84.6%, respectively) and specificity (86.3% both antibodies) for carcinoma. Positive staining for HBME-1 and vimentin had the highest sensitivity (90.9% and 100%, respectively) and specificity (91.3% and 60%, respectively) for mesothelioma. A two-marker antibody panel with HBME-1 and MOC-31 was the most efficient for the distinction between carcinoma and malignant pleural mesothelioma. Conclusion: A combination of MOC-31 (an anti- epithelial marker) and HBME-1 (an anti-mesothelial marker) has a diagnostic efficiency of 76.1% for the distinction between carcinoma and mesothelioma in pleura.