Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In biopsy tissue, discrimination between reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and epithelial mesothelioma can pose a major problem for the surgical pathologist. Confidence in the diagnosis is often proportional to the amount of tissue available for study and depends largely on findings of invasion and the extent and cytologic atypia of the lesion, because there is no marker specific for the mesothelium and that discriminates consistently among normal, hyperplastic, and neoplastic mesothelial tissue. Therefore, mesothelioma in situ is diagnosable only when invasive epithelial mesothelioma is demonstrable in the same specimen, in a follow-up biopsy specimen, or at autopsy. Comparison of 22 cases of mesothelioma in situ that fulfill these requirements for diagnosis with 141 invasive mesotheliomas and 78 reactive mesothelioses indicates that strong linear membrane-related labeling for epithelial membrane antigen and silver-labeled nucleolar organizer region-positive material that occupies 0.6677 microm2 or more of the nucleus in an atypical in situ mesothelial lesion of the pleura are found consistently in neoplastic mesothelial cells. Although these findings may engender suspicion of mesothelioma in situ in high-risk persons, the criteria for diagnosis of pure mesothelial lesions of this type are still under study. Mesothelioma in situ should be considered proved only when unequivocal invasion is identified in a different area of the pleura or at a different time; a diagnosis of pure mesothelioma in situ should not be made in patients not exposed to asbestos.
Henderson et al. (Tue,) studied this question.