The significance of BAP1 and MTAP/CDKN2A expression in well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour: a series of 21 cases and a review of the literature

Abstract

The nomenclature and diagnostic criteria of well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour (WDPMT) have been changed in the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of thoracic tumours, and a new entity, mesothelioma in situ (MIS), introduced. Histologically these two entities may be similar. However, MIS is regarded as a precursor to invasive mesothelioma and requires demonstration of loss of BAP1 and/or MTAP/CDKN2A for diagnosis, whereas performance of these ancillary tests is desirable but not essential for a diagnosis of WDPMT, in which the significance of BAP1 and/or MTAP/CDKN2A loss is not well understood or well defined. Against this backdrop, we undertook an investigation of 21 cases of WDPMT, identified from our case files and diagnosed according to 2021 WHO criteria, to explore the relationship between histology and BAP1 and MTAP/CDKN2A expression with clinical features including asbestos exposure, focality of tumours and clinical outcome. There were 18 women and three men, with ages ranging from 23-77 years (median 62 years), in which six had a history of asbestos exposure, two had no exposure, and in 13 exposure history was unavailable. Of 20 peritoneal tumours and one pleural tumour, 13 were detected incidentally at the time of surgery for unrelated conditions and eight peritoneal tumours were multifocal at the time of diagnosis. BAP1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed in all 21 tumours, with nine tumours showing BAP1 expression loss. MTAP/CDKN2A testing was performed in 14 tumours, comprising MTAP IHC in 12 and CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in two, with three tumours showing MTAP/CDKN2A expression loss. Two tumours with MTAP/CDKN2A loss also showed BAP1 expression loss. Four patients progressed to invasive mesothelioma, including one male with a pleural tumour and asbestos exposure, and three females with multifocal peritoneal tumours, two with asbestos exposure and one without exposure. BAP1 expression loss was seen in all tumours from the four patients who progressed to invasive mesothelioma, whilst two of these tumours showed retained MTAP IHC and two were not tested. There was one patient with a tumour with MTAP loss and retained BAP1 who died from unrelated causes 5 months after diagnosis. Eight patients received WDPMT-specific treatment in addition to the initial excision. Survival for all patients ranged from 4-218 months, with one patient dying of mesothelioma at 49 months. Based on our results in this series of 21 patients with WDPMT diagnosed according to 2021 WHO criteria, we propose that WDPMT with BAP1 expression loss may best be regarded as papillary MIS and that a history of asbestos exposure and the presence of multifocal tumours in patients diagnosed with WDPMT should prompt ancillary testing with BAP1 IHC. Further we propose that BAP1 IHC should be essential in the diagnosis of WDPMT, with the diagnosis restricted to those tumours which show retained BAP1 expression. However more studies in larger cohorts of patients are needed to explore the relationship between BAP1 expression and MTAP loss in WDPMT, which will help to define this entity and separate it more clearly from MIS and invasive mesothelioma.

Keywords: BAP1; CDKN2A; MTAP; Well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour; asbestos; mesothelioma in situ; well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma.