To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.
A ...multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.
The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.
To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.
...A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.
The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .
Serrated lesions of the colorectum are the precursors of perhaps one-third of colorectal cancers (CRCs). Cancers arising in serrated lesions are usually in the proximal colon, and account for a ...disproportionate fraction of cancer identified after colonoscopy. We sought to provide guidance for the clinical management of serrated colorectal lesions based on current evidence and expert opinion regarding definitions, classification, and significance of serrated lesions. A consensus conference was held over 2 days reviewing the topic of serrated lesions from the perspectives of histology, molecular biology, epidemiology, clinical aspects, and serrated polyposis. Serrated lesions should be classified pathologically according to the World Health Organization criteria as hyperplastic polyp, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) with or without cytological dysplasia, or traditional serrated adenoma (TSA). SSA/P and TSA are premalignant lesions, but SSA/P is the principal serrated precursor of CRCs. Serrated lesions have a distinct endoscopic appearance, and several lines of evidence suggest that on average they are more difficult to detect than conventional adenomatous polyps. Effective colonoscopy requires an endoscopist trained in the endoscopic appearance of serrated lesions. We recommend that all serrated lesions proximal to the sigmoid colon and all serrated lesions in the rectosigmoid > 5 mm in size, be completely removed. Recommendations are made for post-polypectomy surveillance of serrated lesions and for surveillance of serrated polyposis patients and their relatives.
Companion diagnostic immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests are developed and performed without incorporating the tools and principles of laboratory metrology. Basic analytic assay parameters such as lower ...limit of detection (LOD) and dynamic range are unknown to both assay developers and end users. We solved this problem by developing completely new tools for IHC-calibrators with units of measure traceable to National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Material (SRM) 1934. In this study, we demonstrate the clinical impact and opportunity for incorporating these changes into PD-L1 testing. Forty-one laboratories in North America and Europe were surveyed with newly-developed PD-L1 calibrators. The survey sampled a broad representation of commercial and laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Using the PD-L1 calibrators, we quantified analytic test parameters that were previously only inferred indirectly after large clinical studies. The data show that the four FDA-cleared PD-L1 assays represent three different levels of analytic sensitivity. The new analytic sensitivity data explain why some patients' tissue samples were positive by one assay and negative by another. The outcome depends on the assay's lower LOD. Also, why previous attempts to harmonize certain PD-L1 assays were unsuccessful; the assays' dynamic ranges were too disparate and did not overlap. PD-L1 assay calibration also clarifies the exact performance characteristics of LDTs relative to FDA-cleared commercial assays. Some LDTs' analytic response curves are indistinguishable from their predicate FDA-cleared assay. IHC assay calibration represents an important transition for companion diagnostic testing. The new tools will improve patient treatment stratification, test harmonization, and foster accuracy as tests transition from clinical trials to broad clinical use.
•High quality ROS1 IHC assays have high clinical utility.•Adjusting readout can increase diagnostic accuracy in ROS1 IHC.•ROS1 IHC readout must be balanced with the analytical sensitivity of the ...assay.•A multi-institutional approach abets the validation of rare disease biomarker assays.
Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) gene rearrangements show dramatic response to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) crizotinib. Current best practice guidelines recommend that all advanced stage non-squamous NSCLC patients be also tested for ROS1 gene rearrangements. Several studies have suggested that ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the D4D6 antibody may be used to screen for ROS1 fusion positive lung cancers, with assays showing high sensitivity but moderate to high specificity. A break apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) test is then used to confirm the presence of ROS1 gene rearrangement. The goal of Canadian ROS1 (CROS) study was to harmonize ROS1 laboratory developed testing (LDT) by using IHC and FISH assays to detect ROS1 rearranged lung cancers across Canadian pathology laboratories.
Cell lines expressing different levels of ROS1 (high, low, none) were used to calibrate IHC protocols after which participating laboratories ran the calibrated protocols on a reference set of 24 NSCLC cases (9 ROS1 rearranged tumors and 15 ROS1 non-rearranged tumors as determined by FISH). Results were compared using a centralized readout. The stained slides were evaluated for the cellular localization of staining, intensity of staining, the presence of staining in non-tumor cells, the presence of non-specific staining (e.g. necrosis, extracellular mater, other) and the percent positive cells. H-score was also determined for each tumor.
Analytical sensitivity and specificity harmonization was achieved by using low limit of detection (LOD) as either any positivity in the U118 cell line or H-score of 200 with the HCC78 cell line. An overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of up to 100% and 99% respectively was achieved for ROS1 IHC testing (relative to FISH) using an adjusted H-score readout on the reference cases.
This study confirms that LDT ROS1 IHC assays can be highly sensitive and specific for detection of ROS1 rearrangements in NSCLC. As NSCLC can demonstrate ROS1 IHC positivity in FISH-negative cases, the degree of the specificity of the IHC assay, especially in highly sensitive protocols, is mostly dependent on the readout cut-off threshold. As ROS1 IHC is a screening assay for a rare rearrangements in NSCLC, we recommend adjustment of the readout threshold in order to balance specificity, rather than decreasing the overall analytical and diagnostic sensitivity of the protocols.
Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is used as a biomarker for anti–programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapies in NSCLC. We report here the results of population-based PD-L1 ...testing using the 22C3 IHC pharmDx Assay (Agilent Technologies) in a large Canadian regional reference pathology laboratory.
Testing was conducted reflexively on biopsies and resections for NSCLC during an 8-month period. Tumor proportion score (TPS) cutoffs for low and high expression were 1% and 50%, respectively.
Altogether, 2031 PD-L1 tests were performed on specimens from 1795 patients, with 107 inconclusive results (5.3%). Excluding cases with inconclusive/missing data, proportions for the remaining 1713 patients were 41.6% for TPS less than 1%, 28.6% for TPS 1% to 49%, and 29.8% for TPS greater than or equal to 50%. Higher PD-L1 expression rates were noted in EGFR wild-type versus mutant tumors (p < 0.001), squamous versus adenocarcinoma (p < 0.001), and metastatic versus primary tumors (p < 0.001). PD-L1 among 103 patients with paired biopsy and resection specimens revealed moderate concordance (κ = 0.67). A total of 52% (25 of 48) of biopsies with TPS less than 1% had TPS greater than 1% in resection, whereas 84.6% (22 of 26) of biopsies with TPS greater than or equal to 50% were concordant in resected tumors. Discordance rates between biopsy and resection were 71.4% for biopsies with less than 8 mm2 total area, compared with 33.3% for biopsies with greater than or equal to 8 mm2 area (p < 0.026). Concordance among 27 patients with paired primary lung and metastatic tumor biopsies revealed only weak concordance (κ = 0.48).
Intratumoral heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression may result in misclassification of PD-L1 status in a substantial proportion of PD-L1–negative small biopsy samples. Biopsy of metastatic site may increase proportion of patients with high PD-L1 expression.
PDF
