Utility of Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase Compared With BAP1 Immunohistochemistry, and CDKN2A and NF2 Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Separating Reactive Mesothelial Proliferations From Epithelioid Malignant Mesotheliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: The separation of reactive from malignant mesothelial proliferations is often a difficult morphologic problem. There is contradictory information in the literature on whether methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) immunohistochemistry can be used for this purpose. OBJECTIVE.—: To determine the utility of MTAP immunohistochemistry in distinguishing reactive from malignant mesothelial proliferations. DESIGN.—: We stained a tissue microarray containing 20 epithelioid malignant mesotheliomas and 17 reactive mesothelial proliferations. For the mesotheliomas, comparisons were made between MTAP staining and BRCA-associated nuclear protein 1 (BAP1) immunohistochemistry, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A ( CDKN2A) fluorescence in situ hybridization, and neurofibromin 2 ( NF2) fluorescence in situ hybridization, which are established techniques for making this separation. RESULTS.—: Loss of MTAP was seen in 0 of 17 reactive mesothelial proliferations and 13/20 (65%) malignant mesotheliomas. Almost all cases with loss showed loss in 100% of mesothelial cells. Background inflammatory and stromal cells served as a positive internal control. CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization on the mesotheliomas showed concordance with MTAP staining in 14 of 17 evaluable cases. BAP1 immunohistochemistry showed loss of nuclear staining in 11 of 20 mesotheliomas (55%). No cases showed loss of NF2. A total of 18 of 20 mesotheliomas (90%) showed loss of either MTAP or BAP1. CONCLUSIONS.—: In the context of a mesothelial proliferation, loss of MTAP staining is 100% specific for malignant mesothelioma. In this study the combination of MTAP and BAP1 immunohistochemical staining allowed separation of reactive from epithelial malignant mesothelial proliferations in 90% of cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".