CDKN2A and MTAP Are Useful Biomarkers Detectable by Droplet Digital PCR in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Potential Alternative Method in Diagnosis Compared to Fluorescence In Situ Hybridisation
- PMID: 33304846
- PMCID: PMC7693432
- DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.579327
CDKN2A and MTAP Are Useful Biomarkers Detectable by Droplet Digital PCR in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Potential Alternative Method in Diagnosis Compared to Fluorescence In Situ Hybridisation
Abstract
Background: The diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) can be difficult, in part due to the difficulty in distinguishing between MPM and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH). The tumor suppressor gene, CDKN2A, is frequently silenced by epigenetic mechanisms in many cancers; in the case of MPM it is mostly silenced via genomic deletion. Co-deletion of the CDKN2A and methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) genes has been researched extensively and discovered to be a highly specific characteristic of MPM. Most studies have used FISH to detect the deletion of CDKN2A and IHC for MTAP as a surrogate for this. In this study, we aim to investigate and validate droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) as an emerging alternative and efficient testing method in diagnosing MPM, by particularly emphasizing on the loss of MTAP and CDKN2A.
Methods: This study included 75 formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) MPM tissue, and 12 normal pleural tissue and 10 RMH as control. Additionally, primary MPM cell lines and normal pleural samples were used as biomarker detection controls, as established in our previous publication. All FFPE specimens were processed to isolate the DNA, that was subsequently used for ddPCR detection of CDKN2A and MTAP. FFPE samples were also analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for CDKN2A and MTAP deletion, and for MTAP IHC expression. Concordance of IHC and ddPCR with FISH were studied in these samples.
Results: 95% and 82% of cases showed co-deletion of both MTAP and CDKN2A when determined by FISH and ddPCR respectively. ddPCR has a sensitivity of 72% and specificity of 100% in detecting CDKN2A homozygous loss in MPM. ddPCR also has a concordance rate of 92% with FISH in detecting homozygous loss of CDKN2A. MTAP IHC was 68% sensitive and 100% specific for detecting CDKN2A homozygous loss in MPM when these losses were determined by ddPCR.
Conclusion: Our study confirms that MTAP is often co-deleted with CDKN2A in MPM. Our in-house designed ddPCR assays for MTAP and CDKN2A are useful in differentiating MPM from RMH, and is highly concordant with FISH that is currently used in diagnosing MPM. ddPCR detection of these genetic losses can potentially be utilized as an alternative method in the diagnosis of MPM and for the future development of a less-invasive MPM-specific detection technique on MPM tumor tissue DNA.
Keywords: CDKN2A; droplet digital PCR; fluorescence in situ hybridization; malignant pleural mesothelioma; methylthioadenosine phosphorylase.
Copyright © 2020 Cheng, Yuen, Rath, Johnson, Zhuang, Yu, Aleksova, Linton, Kao, Clarke, McCaughan, Takahashi and Lee.
Figures




Similar articles
-
Highly expressed EZH2 in combination with BAP1 and MTAP loss, as detected by immunohistochemistry, is useful for differentiating malignant pleural mesothelioma from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia.Lung Cancer. 2019 Apr;130:187-193. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.02.004. Epub 2019 Feb 27. Lung Cancer. 2019. PMID: 30885343
-
Immunohistochemical detection of MTAP and BAP1 protein loss for mesothelioma diagnosis: Comparison with 9p21 FISH and BAP1 immunohistochemistry.Lung Cancer. 2017 Feb;104:98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.12.017. Epub 2016 Dec 23. Lung Cancer. 2017. PMID: 28213009
-
A combination of MTAP and BAP1 immunohistochemistry in pleural effusion cytology for the diagnosis of mesothelioma.Cancer Cytopathol. 2018 Jan;126(1):54-63. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21928. Epub 2017 Oct 20. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018. PMID: 29053210
-
Update of pathological diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma using genomic-based morphological techniques, for both histological and cytological investigations.Pathol Int. 2022 Aug;72(8):389-401. doi: 10.1111/pin.13235. Epub 2022 May 21. Pathol Int. 2022. PMID: 35596704 Review.
-
The Use of Immunohistochemistry, Fluorescence in situ Hybridization, and Emerging Epigenetic Markers in the Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM): A Review.Front Oncol. 2020 Sep 9;10:1742. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01742. eCollection 2020. Front Oncol. 2020. PMID: 33014860 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
The past, present, and future of targeted therapeutic approaches in patients with diffuse pleural mesotheliomas.J Cancer Metastasis Treat. 2023;9:21. doi: 10.20517/2394-4722.2022.140. Epub 2023 May 30. J Cancer Metastasis Treat. 2023. PMID: 38895597 Free PMC article.
-
Preclinical Models and Resources to Facilitate Basic Science Research on Malignant Mesothelioma - A Review.Front Oncol. 2021 Nov 11;11:748444. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.748444. eCollection 2021. Front Oncol. 2021. PMID: 34900693 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Eosinophilic Cells in Ovarian Borderline Serous Tumors as a Predictor of BRAF Mutation.Cancers (Basel). 2024 Jun 25;16(13):2322. doi: 10.3390/cancers16132322. Cancers (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39001384 Free PMC article.
-
Challenging CDKN2A assessment in BRAF-altered gliomas: lessons from a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma-enriched cohort.Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2025 Aug 11;13(1):170. doi: 10.1186/s40478-025-02089-7. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2025. PMID: 40790602 Free PMC article.
-
Mesothelioma Malignancy and the Microenvironment: Molecular Mechanisms.Cancers (Basel). 2021 Nov 12;13(22):5664. doi: 10.3390/cancers13225664. Cancers (Basel). 2021. PMID: 34830817 Free PMC article. Review.
References
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous