Introduction: Body cavity effusions are routinely used as cytologic specimens. The distinction between metastatic carcinoma, mesothelioma, and reactive mesothelial cells remains a major challenge. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a supplemental method that can aid in diagnosis and often involves many markers as part of an IHC panel. Several immunohistochemical markers are now widely used. This study aims to determine the optimal immunomarkers and IHC panels to differentiate reactive mesothelial cells from metastatic cancer in body cavity fluid samples. Methods: IHC was performed for claudin-4, MOC-31, Ber-Ep4, D2-40, and calretinin on sections derived from 152 cellblocks containing effusions. The samples consisted of 16 (10.53%) benign and 136 (89.47%) malignant tumors, including 87 (63.97%) lung cancers, nine (6.62%) breast cancers, 11 (8.09%) gynecologic cancers, seven (5.15%) pancreaticobiliary cancers, and 22 (16.17%) unspecified primary malignancies. Results: Claudin-4, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, D2-40, and calretinin demonstrated sensitivities of 91.18%, 91.91%, 55.88%, 90.44%, and 98.53%, respectively. The corresponding specificities were 100.00%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 93.75%, and 100.00%. The sensitivity and specificity were both 100% when claudin-4 or MOC-31 was combined with calretinin. The combination of four markers as an IHC panel (claudin-4, MOC-31, calretinin, and D2-40) had a sensitivity of 97.79% and a specificity of 100.00%. Conclusion: Claudin-4 and MOC-31 both demonstrated significant diagnostic value in distinguishing metastatic epithelial carcinoma from reactive mesothelium. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of these two markers, one of which is an epithelial marker and one of which is a mesothelial marker, reached 100%. Therefore, a combination of these two markers may be appropriate.

Keywords:
Claudin-4, MOC-31, Effusion cytology, Serous effusion, Fluid cytology, Immunohistochemistry
1.
Lepus CM, Vivero M. Updates in effusion cytology. Surg Patholo Clinc. 2018;11(3):523–44.
2.
Dermawan JKT, Policarpio-Nicolas ML. Malignancies in pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial effusions: a 17-year single-institution review from 30 085 specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144(9):1086–91.
3.
Lew M, Cantley R, Heider A, Jing X. Diagnosis and categorization of malignant effusions: A 6-year review from a single academic institution. Diagn Cytopathol. 2021;49(5):615–21.
4.
Husain AN, Colby TV, Ordóñez NG, Allen TC, Attanoos RL, Beasley MB, et al. Guidelines for pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma 2017 update of the consensus statement from the international mesothelioma interest group. Archiv Pathol Labo Medi. 2018;142(1):89–108.
5.
Saleh HA, El-Fakharany M, Makki H, Kadhim A, Masood S. Differentiating reactive mesothelial cells from metastatic adenocarcinoma in serous effusions: the utility of immunocytochemical panel in the differential diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37(5):324–32.
6.
Hyun TS, Barnes M, Tabatabai ZL. The diagnostic utility of D2-40, calretinin, CK5/6, desmin and MOC-31 in the differentiation of mesothelioma from adenocarcinoma in pleural effusion cytology. Acta Cytologica. 2012;56(5):527–32.
7.
Khurram N, Anis T, Yusuf NW. Diagnostic accuracy of a limited immuno-panel of Calretinin and ber-EP4 for diagnosis of malignant effusions. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019;29(1):33–6.
8.
Jo VY, Cibas ES, Pinkus GS. Claudin-4 immunohistochemistry is highly effective in distinguishing adenocarcinoma from malignant mesothelioma in effusion cytology: claudin-4 IHC in effusion cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(4):299–306.
9.
Oda T, Ogata S, Kawaguchi S, Minabe S, Dokyu M, Takahashi H, et al. Immunocytochemical utility of claudin-4 versus those of Ber-EP4 and MOC-31 in effusion cytology: claudin-4 in effusion cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2016;44(6):499–504.
10.
Vojtek M, Walsh MD, Papadimos DJ, Shield PW. Claudin 4 immunohistochemistry is a useful pan carcinoma marker for serous effusion specimens. Cytopathol. 2019;30(6):614–9.
11.
Patel A, Borczuk AC, Siddiqui MT. Utility of claudin-4 versus BerEP4 and B72.3 in pleural fluids with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. J American Soci Cytopathol. 2020;9(3):146–51.
12.
Bernardi L, Bizzarro T, Pironi F, Szymczuk S, Buda R, Fabbri E, et al. The “Brescia panel” (claudin 4 and BRCA associated protein 1) in the differential diagnosis of mesotheliomas with epithelioid features versus metastatic carcinomas. Cancer Cytopathol. 2021;129(4):275–82.
13.
Pinto D, Chandra A, Crothers BA, Kurtycz DFI, Schmitt F. The international system for reporting serous fluid cytopathology-diagnostic categories and clinical management. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;9(6):469–77.
14.
Naso JR, Churg A. Claudin-4 shows superior specificity for mesothelioma vs non-small-cell lung carcinoma compared with MOC-31 and Ber-EP4. Hum Pathol. 2020;100:10–4.
15.
Hewitt KJ, Agarwal R, Morin PJ. The claudin gene family: expression in normal and neoplastic tissues. BMC Cancer. 2006;6(1):186.
16.
Ouban A, Ahmed AA. Claudins in human cancer: a review. Histol Histopathol. 2010;25(1):83–90
17.
Tabariès S, Siegel PM. The role of claudins in cancer metastasis. Oncogene. 2017;36(9):1176–90.
18.
Sahu S, Sharma S, Gupta P, Dey P. MOC31 immunostaining in the diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma in serous fluid: special emphasis on atypical cytological cases. Acta Cytologica. 2021;65(3):242–9.
19.
Cancer today. Thailand source: Globocan 2020. [Retrieved 2022 May 24] Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/764-thailand-fact-sheets.pdf.
© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2022
You do not currently have access to this content.