Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Awareness of Partial Loss is Essential in Interpreting Merlin Immunohistochemistry When Diagnosing Pleural Mesothelioma.

Created on 16 Oct 2026

Authors

Kazuki Nabeshima, Tomomi Furukawa, Makoto Hamasaki, Kei Kushitani, Yukio Takeshima, Shigeki Shimizu, Kenzo Hiroshima, Maiko Takeda, Hironori Ninomiya, Katsumi Takizawa, Yuko Goto, Makiko Adachi

Published in

Pathology international. Volume 76. Issue 10. Pages e70195.

Abstract

Ancillary assays, including BAP1 (BRCA-1-associated protein 1), MTAP (methylthioadenosine phosphorylase), and Merlin immunohistochemistry (IHC), are effective in discriminating pleural mesothelioma (PM) from reactive mesothelial proliferations (RMP). IHC of Merlin, a protein product of the neurofibromin 2 gene, was most recently developed. Our previous study suggested uneven occurrence of Merlin loss within PM tissues. This was further investigated here in a total of 41 tissues of PM obtained from seven institutions. Partial or diffuse Merlin loss was detected with excellent interobserver agreement (kappa: 0.82). Of the 34 PM cases with interobserver consensus, partial and diffuse loss of Merlin expression were each observed in 13 cases (38%). PM with partial Merlin loss exhibited either discrete or intermingled spatial distribution of Merlin-lost cells. BAP1 or MTAP showed partial loss in none or only 5% of PM cases, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity for PM was enhanced to 91% with addition of diffuse and partial Merlin loss to a combination of BAP1 and MTAP loss while maintaining 100% specificity. Although detection of Merlin loss as well as BAP1 and MTAP losses is effective for distinguishing PM from RMP, pathologists should be familiar with partial Merlin loss when interpreting Merlin IHC results.

PMID:
42885816
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 16 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 14
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement