Large cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma: consensus statement from The British Thoracic Oncology Group and the Association of Pulmonary Pathologists.

Over the past 10 years, lung cancer clinical and translational research has been characterised by exponential progress, exemplified by the introduction of molecularly targeted therapies, immunotherapy and chemo-immunotherapy combinations to stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. Along with squamous and small cell lung cancers, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) now represents an area of unmet need, particularly hampered by the lack of an encompassing pathological definition that can facilitate real-world and clinical trial progress. The steps we have proposed in this article represent an iterative and rational path forward towards clinical breakthroughs that can be modelled on success in other lung cancer pathologies.

Lung cancer biomarker testing: perspective from Europe.

A questionnaire on biomarker testing previously used in central European countries was extended and distributed in Western and Central European countries to the pathologists participating at the Pulmonary Pathology Society meeting 26-28 June 2019 in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Each country was represented by one responder. For recent biomarkers the availability and reimbursement of diagnoses of molecular alterations in non-small cell lung carcinoma varies widely between different, also western European, countries. Reimbursement of such assessments varies widely between unavailability and payments by the health care system or even pharmaceutical companies. The support for testing from alternative sources, such as the pharmaceutical industry, is no doubt partly compensating for the lack of public health system support, but it is not a viable or long-term solution. Ideally, a structured access to testing and reimbursement should be the aim in order to provide patients with appropriate therapeutic options. As biomarker enabled therapies deliver a 50% better probability of outcome success, improved and unbiased reimbursement remains a major challenge for the future.

External quality assessment demonstrates that PD-L1 22C3 and SP263 assays are systematically different.

PD-L1 inhibitors are part of first line treatment options for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays act as either a companion or a complementary diagnostic. The purpose of this study is to describe the experience of external quality assurance (EQA) provider UK NEQAS ICC and ISH with the comparison of different PD-L1 assays used in daily practice. Three EQA rounds (pilot, run A and run B) were carried out using formalin fixed paraffin embedded samples with sample sets covering a range of epitope concentrations, including 'critical samples' near to clinical threshold cut-offs. An expert panel (n = 4) evaluated all returned slides simultaneously and independently on a multi-header microscope together with the participants own in-house control material. The tonsil sample was evaluated as 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable', and for the other samples the percentage of PD-L1 stained tumour cells were estimated in predetermined categories (<1%, 1 to <5%, 5 to <10%, 10 to <25%, 25 to <50%, 50 to <80%, 80 to 100%). In the pilot and the two subsequent runs the number of participating laboratories was 43, 69 and 76, respectively. The pass rate for the pilot run was 67%; this increased to 81% at run A and 82% at run B. For two 'critical samples', in runs A and B, 22C3 IHC had significantly higher PD-L1 expression than SP263 IHC (p < 0.001), whilst the PD-L1 scores for the other six samples were similar for all assays. In run A the laboratory developed tests (LDTs) using 22C3 scored lower than the commercial 22C3 tests (p = 0.01). After the initial testing, improvement in performance of PD-L1 IHC is shown for approved and LDT PD-L1 assays. Equivalency of approved PD-L1 22C3 and SP263 assays cannot be assumed as the scores cross the clinically relevant thresholds of 1% and 50% PD-L1 expression.