Differentiating malignant mesothelioma (MM) from pulmonary carcinoma in pleural fluid cytology can be challenging. Recent studies have suggested that D2-40, a novel lymphatic marker, may be a useful marker for mesothelial differentiation in surgical specimens. However, there are no available data regarding its utility in effusion cytology specimens. We investigated the utility of D2-40 in pleural fluid cytology in differentiating MM from pulmonary carcinomas. Twenty cases of pleural effusion smears of surgically confirmed MM with their corresponding cell blocks were retrieved from the database of the hospital computer system. We also included 10 cases of metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma (PA) and 10 cases metastatic pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) involving the pleural fluid. Cell blocks were formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded, and immunostained for TTF1, p63, calretinin, CK5/6, WT-1, and D2-40. Cases were scored as negative (<5% positivity) or positive (>5% moderate/strong positivity). The positive rates for TTF1, p63, calretinin, CK5/6, WT-1, and D2-40 were as follows: MM (0/20), (0/20), (17/20), (18/20), (19/20), (17/20), for PA (8/10), (0/10), (3/10), (0/10), (0/10), (0/10), and for PSCC (1/10), (10/10), (6/10), (10/10), (0/15), (0/10). The staining pattern for D2-40 was characterized by thick membranous staining. Diffuse cytoplasmic staining by D2-40 was seen in 2 cases of pulmonary carcinoma, counted as negative. Our study showed that in differentiating MM from PA, CK5/6, WT-1, and D2-40 have high specificity and sensitivity for MM. Although calretinin is a sensitive IHC marker for MM, it is not specific since it stained 30% of PA. Conversely, to differentiate between MM and PSCC, p63 and WT-1 are the best available markers. We recommend a panel of CK5/6, p63, D2-40, and WT-1 to differentiate MM from pulmonary carcinomas in effusion cytology specimens.

We report two cases of sudden unexpected death in two unrelated African American female infants, 2 months and 4 months old. Both infants were attended to by the same babysitter in the same apartment and died 39 days apart in the same bed and in the same bedroom. The autopsy of the first infant revealed sudden unexplained death in an infant. Toxicologic analysis for carbon monoxide (CO) was not performed because it was not suspected. When the second infant died, investigation into the ambient air quality within the apartment revealed high levels of CO emanating from a poorly ventilated and defective hot water heater, which was located across a hallway from the bedroom where the two babies died. CO saturation levels in the postmortem blood samples of the two babies were elevated and were similar (13% and 14%). Nicotine and cotinine were not detected in the blood sample of the two infants. Cherry-red livor mortis was absent. Acute CO intoxication was determined to be the underlying cause of these two unexpected deaths. These two cases underscore the need to integrate ambient air analysis and postmortem CO analysis as routine components of the comprehensive death investigation of infants who die suddenly and unexpectedly.