How useful is GLUT-1 in differentiating mesothelial hyperplasia and fibrosing pleuritis from epithelioid and sarcomatoid mesotheliomas? An international collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE

Mesothelial hyperplasia (MH) and fibrosing pleuritis (FP) can be difficult to distinguish from epithelioid (MM-E) and sarcomatoid (MM-S) malignant pleural mesotheliomas. GLUT-1 has shown variable results regarding its sensitivity and specificity when used to evaluate mesothelial proliferations. We evaluated the utility of GLUT-1 immunostaining in differentiating MH and FP from MM-E and MM-S.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

In this retrospective study, diagnostically well-characterized cases (MH=31, FP=29, MM-E=41, MM-S=29) were collected and manually stained for GLUT-1. All slides were visually scored by 2 pathologists; using the following system: 0%, 1+ 1-25%, 2+ 26-50% and 3+ >51% cells staining.

RESULTS

All benign cases (n=60) were negative for GLUT-1 while 45 of 78 (58%) MM [21 of 41 (50%) MM-E, 21 of 29 (72%) MM-S and 3 of 3 biphasic mesothelioma (100%)] had 1+ to 3+ staining. Of the MM-E, 10 had 1+, and 11 had 2+ staining; of the MM-S 3 had 1+, 15 had 2+ and 3 had 3+ staining. Both sarcomatoid and epithelioid components of the 3 biphasic mesotheliomas revealed 1+ staining. All 5 desmoplastic MM were negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive staining with GLUT-1 is helpful since it is present in half of MM-E and three-quarter of MM-S. Although all reactive mesothelial lesions were negative, the absence of immunoreactivity does not exclude the diagnosis of MM. As with all IHC stains used for diagnostic purposes, GLUT-1 has to be a part of a panel, and the results interpreted in the context of clinical, radiological and histological findings.