Synchronous diffuse malignant mesothelioma and carcinomas in asbestos-exposed individuals

AIMS: The development of synchronous diffuse malignant mesothelioma and carcinoma in individuals exposed to asbestos is rare. We report nine cases and discuss the medico-legal implications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five hundred patients seeking compensation for asbestos-related diffuse malignant mesothelioma were reviewed with access to post-mortem data. The study group comprised cases in which a second (non-mesothelial) neoplasm was identified. The study group comprised eight males, one female, mean age 68 years (range 60-75). All individuals gave a history of asbestos exposure. Synchronous malignant mesothelioma with carcinoma was identified in 9/500 (1.8%). Eight malignant mesotheliomas were pleural, one was primary peritoneal in origin. By morphological subtyping there were four epithelioid, three biphasic and two sarcomatoid mesotheliomas. In 6/9 (67%) the second tumour was a primary bronchogenic carcinoma (three adenocarcinomas, two squamous cell carcinomas and one small-cell carcinoma). In 3/9 (33%) the second tumour was a non-bronchogenic carcinoma (colonic, pancreatic and breast ductal adenocarcinoma). No other neoplasms were identified in the cohort of malignant mesotheliomas studied. Five persons had pathological evidence of asbestosis (four had bronchogenic carcinomas, one colorectal adenocarcinoma). Two persons with non-bronchogenic carcinomas had identifiable asbestos bodies but no interstitial fibrosis. In two cases the second neoplasms (primary bronchogenic squamous cell and small-cell carcinomas) were associated with diffuse interstitial fibrosis but no asbestos bodies were seen on light microscopy. In each case transmission electron microscopic mineral analysis revealed an asbestos fibre burden within the background population range for control subjects and well below that seen in cases of established asbestosis. These cases were considered to represent cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis in subjects with a history of asbestos exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous malignant mesothelioma with carcinomas in asbestos-exposed workers is rare and identified in 1.8% of 500 malignant mesotheliomas in this series. In most cases the carcinoma represents a primary bronchogenic neoplasm. Primary lung carcinomas are recognized to be asbestos related only when occurring in association with asbestosis. In this series this combination (bronchogenic carcinoma and asbestosis) was seen in four (0.8%) cases. In post-mortem cases for possible malignant mesothelioma it is important to identify any other neoplasia and determine whether it is related to asbestos. Their presence impact upon anticipated life expectancy and in the presence of malignant mesothelioma will affect the compensation settlement.     

Malignant epithelioid mesothelioma: anti-mesothelial marker expression correlates with histological pattern

AIMS: Malignant epithelioid mesothelioma shows marked cytoarchitectural diversity. The aim of the study was to evaluate how immunoreactivity with mesothelial markers related to histological pattern. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-two cases of malignant epithelioid mesothelioma (60 pleural, 32 peritoneal) were examined and classified as exhibiting tubulopapillary, adenomatoid, solid, small cell or pleomorphic patterns. All cases were immunohistochemically stained with thrombomodulin, calretinin, CD44H, and cytokeratin 5/6. Cases of malignant mesothelioma exhibited a number of different histological forms. Immunohistochemical expression of each mesothelial marker tested was not homogeneous across different histological patterns of malignant epithelioid mesothelioma, even within the same tumour section. Calretinin (with nuclear expression) was identified to show the highest overall sensitivity and lowest range variation in staining (67% sensitivity in small cell areas to 100% expression in pleomorphic areas). Cytokeratin 5/6 and thrombomodulin yielded similar overall sensitivity. Thrombomodulin appeared to demonstrate higher sensitivity for small cell variant tumour (83% sensitivity). A notable advantage with cytokeratin 5/6 was that expression was more diffuse in nature rather than the focal membranous elaboration seen in thrombomodulin. The widest range of staining was seen in small cell mesothelioma (83% sensitivity with thrombomodulin to 17% sensitivity with cytokeratin 5/6) and in tubulopapillary areas (90% sensitivity with calretinin to 38% sensitivity with CD44H). CONCLUSIONS: Calretinin appears most useful and shows the highest overall sensitivity for malignant epithelioid mesothelioma, with good expression in areas displaying a tubulopapillary, adenomatoid, solid and pleomorphic pattern. For small cell mesothelioma, thrombomodulin appears to confer higher sensitivity and is advocated, in this setting, as the first line mesothelial marker. Cytokeratin 5/6 is a useful and easily interpretable mesothelial marker. CD44H is not of particular use in the diagnosis of malignant epithelioid mesothelioma. Accurate interpretation of immunohistochemistry in mesothelioma requires an awareness of the immunophenotypic heterogeneity identified in different histological forms of the tumour, and this is of particular importance in small biopsies.     

Primary sarcomas of the lung: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study of 14 cases

The clinicopathological features and immunohistochemical findings in 14 primary sarcomas of the lung collected over a 30-year-period are presented. This represents one sarcoma per 550 bronchogenic carcinomas undergoing resection in this centre. The study group comprised six leiomyosarcomas, five malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours, two haemangiopericytomas and one epithelioid haemangioendothelioma. The majority of cases occurred in men (nine males: five females), with mean age at presentation of 54 years for men and 47 years for women. All leiomyosarcomas were seen in men, whereas malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours showed no particular sex preponderance. Leiomyosarcomas were larger tumours than malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours, mean tumour diameter 15 cm (range 10–25 cm) compared to 9.5 cm (7–15 cm), respectively. All leiomyosarcomas were situated intraparenchymally whereas two of the five malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours were endobronchial in site. Extrathoracic metastates were seen at death in two of the six leiomyosarcomas but not in any of the malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours. Overall survival was 28 months although for the leiomyosarcoma/malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour group alone survival was 8 months. Tumour grading appeared to be a more useful prognostic factor than tumour site (endobronchial/parenchymal) or tumour size. Haemangiopericytoma and epithelioid haemangioendothelioma were associated with a more favourable prognosis.     

Primary thymic epithelial tumours of the pleura mimicking malignant mesothelioma

AIMS: To illustrate the macroscopic, light microscopic and immunophenotypic similarities that exist between primary pleural thymic epithelial tumours and diffuse malignant mesothelioma. To investigate the expression of the mesothelial markers, cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, calretinin and thrombomodulin in a series of mediastinal thymic epithelial tumours. METHODS AND RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, 64 diffuse pleural tumours of non-mesothelial histogenesis were identified in the files of referrals to the South Wales regional thoracic centre (Llandough Hospital, Cardiff). Of these, five pleural tumours were diagnosed as primary pleural thymic epithelial neoplasms. From the files of the Mesopath group, Caen, three additional cases of thymic epithelial tumours with pleural involvement were identified. The study group comprised eight cases (four males, four females) with median age at presentation of 56 years (range 19-75 years). In one case there was a history of asbestos exposure. Macroscopically, seven tumours formed diffuse pleural masses. No mediastinal abnormality or intraparenchymal lesions were seen in five cases. By light microscopy, seven thymic epithelial neoplasms showed a lobulated architecture, one appeared extensively cystic. The tumours were of varied morphological subtypes: one medullary (WHO Type A), two mixed (WHO Type AB), three predominantly cortical (WHO Type B1) and two cortical (WHO Type B1). The subtypes morphologically mimicked sarcomatoid, biphasic, lymphohistiocytoid variant and epithelioid mesothelioma. The pleural thymic epithelial tumours showed immunoreactivity with broad spectrum cytokeratin AE1/AE3 (8/8; 100%), CK5/6 (8/8; 100%), and 1/8 (13%) expressed thrombomodulin. Calretinin showed variable nuclear and cytoplasmic expression in all cases, but equivocally in the thymic epithelial cell component. In 7/8 (88%) the thymic epithelial cells exhibited focal aberrant expression of CD20. Epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) showed focal expression in the perivascular and organoid areas in 6/8 (75%) cases. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CD34 were uniformly negative. In 4/8 (50%) cases the lymphoid cell component was of immature phenotype expressing CD99, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) and lymphoid precursors had a high proliferation fraction with Ki67. In the series of 20 primary mediastinal thymic epithelial tumours tested, mesothelial marker expression revealed CK5/6 (20/20), thrombomodulin (3/20; 15%) and calretinin (0/20; 0%). Varying amounts of calretinin-positive stromal cells were present. CONCLUSION: Primary pleural thymic epithelial tumours are rare but may mimic malignant mesothelioma by forming diffuse serosal-based masses. In addition, both tumours may show morphological diversity (with epithelial, spindled and mixed components present). An awareness that thymic epithelial tumours may variably express the mesothelial markers CK5/6, calretinin and thrombomodulin prevents misdiagnosis. In the distinction from malignant mesothelioma a lobulated architecture and organoid features favour a thymic epithelial neoplasm. The presence of aberrant CD20 expression in a cytokeratin-positive epithelial neoplasm and/or the presence of an immature lymphoid population (by demonstration of CD1a, CD2, CD99 and TdT) indicates a thymic epithelial neoplasm. In contrast, nuclear calretinin expression favours malignant mesothelioma.     

Malignant vascular tumours of the pleura in "asbestos" workers and endothelial differentiation in malignant mesothelioma

BACKGROUND: Three cases of diffuse malignant vascular tumours of the pleura are described which mimicked malignant mesothelioma clinically and pathologically (so called "pseudomesothelioma"). All had occupational histories of exposure to asbestos. The relationship of these tumours to mesothelioma and asbestos exposure is discussed. METHODS: To examine the histogenetic relationship between mesothelioma and these three tumours an immunohistochemical analysis of vascular marker (CD31, CD34, and Von Willebrand factor) expression was undertaken in 92 cases of pleural mesothelioma, in addition to these three tumours. Electron microscopic fibre analysis of lung tissue was performed on each of the three cases to assess asbestos fibre content. RESULTS: Diffuse pleural epithelioid haemangioendotheliomas may closely resemble malignant mesothelioma clinically and pathologically but, of the 92 pleural mesotheliomas tested, none showed expression of CD31, CD34, and Von Willebrand factor. Although all three cases had claimed exposure to asbestos, ferruginous bodies typical of asbestos were only seen by light microscopy in case 2, and only in this subject was the asbestos fibre content raised in comparison with the range seen in a non-exposed background population. The latent period in the pleural epithelioid haemangioendotheliomas ranged from 18 to 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: Endothelial differentiation does not appear to occur in mesothelioma and therefore should be clearly separated from it. No definite association between pleural epithelioid haemangioendothelioma and exposure to asbestos can be made from this small series but further investigation is warranted.     

The comparative accuracy of different pleural biopsy techniques in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

Aims:  To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of closed and open pleural biopsies in diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma.
Methods and results:  The autopsy study group comprised 45 malignant mesotheliomas. All prior pleural biopsy investigations were reviewed. Forty-one of 45 (91%) had had an antemortem diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. In these 41 cases, 57 prior diagnostic pleural biopsies had been performed [36 closed needle biopsies: 31 blind; five computed tomography (CT)-guided and 21 open pleural biopsies]. For definitive diagnosis open pleural biopsy yielded a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 100%. For definitive diagnosis closed blind pleural biopsies yielded a sensitivity of 16% and specificity of 94%. Thirty-two per cent of 'blind' biopsies were inadequate. CT-guided pleural biopsies yielded a definitive diagnostic accuracy of 100% (5/5). Biopsy specimen size was important in obtaining a positive definitive diagnosis. Diagnosis was attained in 75% of specimens >10 mm in size compared with 8% <10 mm in size.
Conclusions:  Overall, all procedures had utility but definitive diagnostic accuracy for 'blind' closed pleural biopsy was low (16%), dependent on biopsy specimen size and tumour subtype. Sarcomatoid subtype malignant mesothelioma yielded the lowest diagnostic accuracy. For all subtypes of malignant mesothelioma, open pleural biopsy produced the highest diagnostic accuracy (100% sensitivity, 95% specificity).     

Well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma of the pleura: a series of 24 cases

Well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma (WDPM) of the pleura represents a distinct mesothelial tumor presenting with unilateral pleural effusion and superficial spreading of stout papillary formations with myxoid cores, lined by bland, flattened, or epithelioid cells, without or with limited invasion of the submesothelial layer. The majority of cases have been reported in the peritoneum in women of reproductive age with no history of asbestos exposure and also in the tunica vaginalis of men. We report 24 cases of pleural WDPM and compared their histologic, epidemiologic, and clinical features with those of classic mesothelioma. Men and women were equally affected, with a mean age of 60 years. Half of the patients had a history of occupational asbestos exposure. In 11 patients with a minimal follow-up period of 24 months, the survival ranged from 36 to 180 months with an average of 74 months as compared with 9.89 months for 1248 paired patients with diffuse malignant mesothelioma. Ten-year survival was 30.8%. We conclude that WDPM is a rare and unusual mesothelial tumor, characterized by a lack of deep invasion and associated with an indolent clinical course and long survival. For these reasons, WDPM is best considered as a specific clinico-pathologic entity distinct from conventional diffuse malignant mesothelioma.