Factors Likely to Affect the Uptake of Genomic Approaches to Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.

Genomic tests are being developed for use in cancer screening. As most screening is offered in primary care settings, primary care provider and patient perceptions of such tests are likely to affect uptake. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize information on factors likely to affect patient and provider use of biospecimen collection and analysis for cancer screening, methods referred to as liquid biopsy or multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing when used to detect multiple cancers. We ultimately identified 7 articles for review and analyzed them for major themes. None reported on primary care provider perspectives. Six articles focused on patient perceptions about testing for a single cancer (colorectal), and 1 reported on patient views related to testing for multiple cancers. Factors favoring this type of testing included its non-invasiveness, and the perceived safety, convenience, and effectiveness of testing. There is a dearth of information in the literature on primary care provider perceptions about liquid biopsy and MCED testing. The limited information on patient perceptions suggests that they are receptive to such tests. Research on primary care provider and patient test-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior is needed to guide future implementation in primary care settings.

Clinical Activity of Nivolumab for Human Papilloma Virus-Related Juvenile-Onset Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (JO-RRP) is a human papilloma virus-mediated progressive benign neoplasm that affects children and young adults. Primary management consists of regular surgical debulking to maintain airway patency and vocal function. Like condyloma acuminata, JO-RRP is associated with immune dysregulation, and T cells isolated from papillomas express an anergic phenotype. Therefore, we hypothesized that programmed death protein 1 axis inhibition could stabilize tumor growth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We treated two patients with refractory JO-RRP using nivolumab, with the primary objective of assessing clinical activity. We explored baseline papilloma features using immunohistochemistry and comprehensive genomic profiling. RESULTS: Both patients experienced symptomatic improvement, and interval laryngoscopies revealed a reduction in papillomatosis burden. One patient has not required subsequent surgical debridement for almost 2 years. On pathologic examination of pretreatment papillomas from both cases, infiltrating T cells were evident in the papilloma stroma, and papilloma programmed death ligand 1 expression was absent. Papilloma mutational load ranged between three and six mutations per megabase for each case. From on-treatment biopsy tissue, a higher amount of intraepithelial T cells and programmed death ligand 1 expression were detected in the papilloma. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab appears to have promising activity in JO-RRP, and further clinical investigation with more patients in clinical trials is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To the authors' knowledge, this article is the first report describing clinical activity with a programed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor to treat a rare but detrimental type of respiratory tract epithelial neoplasm that afflicts young adults. Two patients were treated, and tumor features, such as mutational load, were examined with the intent to stimulate future hypotheses for translational research. The safety and activity of PD-1 inhibitors in this population still need to be corroborated in clinical trials and should not yet be adopted into clinical practice.

Automated measurement of estrogen receptor in breast cancer: a comparison of fluorescent and chromogenic methods of measurement.

Whereas FDA-approved methods of assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) are 'fit for purpose', they represent a 30-year-old technology. New quantitative methods, both chromogenic and fluorescent, have been developed and studies have shown that these methods increase the accuracy of assessment of ER. Here, we compare three methods of ER detection and assessment on two retrospective tissue microarray (TMA) cohorts of breast cancer patients: estimates of percent nuclei positive by pathologists and by Aperio's nuclear algorithm (standard chromogenic immunostaining), and immunofluorescence as quantified with the automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) method of quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF). Reproducibility was excellent (R(2)>0.95) between users for both automated analysis methods, and the Aperio and QIF scoring results were also highly correlated, despite the different detection systems. The subjective readings show lower levels of reproducibility and a discontinuous, bimodal distribution of scores not seen by either mechanized method. Kaplan-Meier analysis of 10-year disease-free survival was significant for each method (Pathologist, P=0.0019; Aperio, P=0.0053, AQUA, P=0.0026); however, there were discrepancies in patient classification in 19 out of 233 cases analyzed. Out of these, 11 were visually positive by both chromogenic and fluorescent detection. In 10 cases, the Aperio nuclear algorithm labeled the nuclei as negative; in 1 case, the AQUA score was just under the cutoff for positivity (determined by an Index TMA). In contrast, 8 out of 19 discrepant cases had clear nuclear positivity by fluorescence that was unable to be visualized by chromogenic detection, perhaps because of low positivity masked by the hematoxylin counterstain. These results demonstrate that automated systems enable objective, precise quantification of ER. Furthermore, immunofluorescence detection offers the additional advantage of a signal that cannot be masked by a counterstaining agent. These data support the usage of automated methods for measurement of this and other biomarkers that may be used in companion diagnostic tests.

Quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression shows SP1 antibody is more sensitive than 1D5.

Studies comparing rabbit monoclonal SP1 antibody with 1D5 for estrogen receptor (ER) immunohistochemical testing show conflicting results. Here we use a standardized quantitative immunofluorescent (QIF) ER assay to determine the level and significance of discordance between the antibodies. Both antibodies were assessed by QIF on our Index TMA of cell lines and case controls, followed by QIF and immunohistochemical analysis on 2 retrospective cohorts from Yale. On the Index TMA, SP1 displayed stronger signal-to-noise ratio compared with 1D5. On the patient cohorts, the range of discrepancy between the 2 antibodies was 8% to 16.9%, with the majority of discrepant cases being SP1 positive/1D5 negative. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the discrepant cases showed outcomes comparable to those of double-positive cases, suggesting that SP1 is more sensitive than 1D5. A series of cases with high levels of ER-ß shows that neither antibody cross-reacts, suggesting equivalent specificity. Future efforts are needed to determine whether response to endocrine therapies show superiority of either antibody as a companion diagnostic test.

Quantitative in situ measurement of estrogen receptor mRNA predicts response to tamoxifen.

PURPOSE: Quantification of mRNA has historically been done by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Recently, a robust method of detection of mRNA utilizing in situ hybridization has been described that is linear and shows high specificity with low background. Here we describe the use of the AQUA method of quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF) for measuring mRNA in situ using ESR1 (the estrogen receptor alpha gene) in breast cancer to determine its predictive value compared to Estrogen Receptor α (ER) protein. METHODS: Messenger RNA for ER (ESR1) and Ubiquitin C (UbC) were visualized using RNAscope probes and levels were quantified by quantitative in situ hybridization (qISH) on two Yale breast cancer cohorts on tissue microarrays. ESR1 levels were compared to ER protein levels measured by QIF using the SP1 antibody. RESULTS: ESR1 mRNA is reproducibly and specifically measurable by qISH on tissue collected from 1993 or later. ESR1 levels were correlated to ER protein levels in a non-linear manner on two Yale cohorts. High levels of ESR1 were found to be predictive of response to tamoxifin. CONCLUSION: Quantification of mRNA using qISH may allow assessment of large cohorts with minimal formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tissue. Exploratory data using this method suggests that measurement of ESR1 mRNA levels may be predictive of response to endocrine therapy in a manner that is different from the predictive value of ER.

Cytoplasmic estrogen receptor in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In addition to genomic signaling, it is accepted that estrogen receptor-α (ERα) has nonnuclear signaling functions, which correlate with tamoxifen resistance in preclinical models. However, evidence for cytoplasmic ER localization in human breast tumors is less established. We sought to determine the presence and implications of nonnuclear ER in clinical specimens. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A panel of ERα-specific antibodies (SP1, MC20, F10, 60c, and 1D5) was validated by Western blot and quantitative immunofluorescent (QIF) analysis of cell lines and patient controls. Then eight retrospective cohorts collected on tissue microarrays were assessed for cytoplasmic ER. Four cohorts were from Yale (YTMA 49, 107, 130, and 128) and four others (NCI YTMA 99, South Swedish Breast Cancer Group SBII, NSABP B14, and a Vietnamese Cohort) from other sites around the world. RESULTS: Four of the antibodies specifically recognized ER by Western and QIF analysis, showed linear increases in amounts of ER in cell line series with progressively increasing ER, and the antibodies were reproducible on YTMA 49 with Pearson correlations (r(2) values) ranging from 0.87 to 0.94. One antibody with striking cytoplasmic staining (MC20) failed validation. We found evidence for specific cytoplasmic staining with the other four antibodies across eight cohorts. The average incidence was 1.5%, ranging from 0 to 3.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show ERα is present in the cytoplasm in a number of cases using multiple antibodies while reinforcing the importance of antibody validation. In nearly 3,200 cases, cytoplasmic ER is present at very low incidence, suggesting its measurement is unlikely to be of routine clinical value.

Standardization of estrogen receptor measurement in breast cancer suggests false-negative results are a function of threshold intensity rather than percentage of positive cells.

PURPOSE: Recent misclassification (false negative) incidents have raised awareness concerning limitations of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) in breast cancer. Here we define a new method for standardization of ER measurement and then examine both change in percentage and threshold of intensity (immunoreactivity) to assess sources for test discordance. METHODS: An assay was developed to quantify ER by using a control tissue microarray (TMA) and a series of cell lines in which ER immunoreactivity was analyzed by quantitative immunoblotting in parallel with the automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) method of quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF). The assay was used to assess the ER protein expression threshold in two independent retrospective cohorts from Yale and was compared with traditional methods. RESULTS: Two methods of analysis showed that change in percentage of positive cells from 10% to 1% did not significantly affect the overall number of ER-positive patients. The standardized assay for ER on two Yale TMA cohorts showed that 67.9% and 82.5% of the patients were above the 2-pg/µg immunoreactivity threshold. We found 9.1% and 19.7% of the patients to be QIF-positive/IHC-negative, and 4.0% and 0.4% to be QIF-negative/IHC-positive for a total of 13.1% and 20.1% discrepant cases when compared with pathologists' judgment of threshold. Assessment of survival for both cohorts showed that patients who were QIF-positive/pathologist-negative had outcomes similar to those of patients who had positive results for both assays. CONCLUSION: Assessment of intensity threshold by using a quantitative, standardized assay on two independent cohorts suggests discordance in the 10% to 20% range with current IHC methods, in which patients with discrepant results have prognostic outcomes similar to ER-positive patients with concordant results.

Analytic variability in immunohistochemistry biomarker studies.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of immunohistochemistry (IHC), there are no standardization guidelines that control for antibody probe variability. Here we describe the effect of variable antibody reagents in the assessment of cancer-related biomarkers by IHC. METHODS: Estrogen receptor (ER), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) 1, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) were evaluated by quantitative immunofluorescence. Correlations between ER clones 1D5, SP1, F10, and ER60c, and EGFR monoclonal 31G7, 2-18C9, H11, and 15F8, and polyclonal 2232 antibodies were assessed in 642 breast cancer patients. HER3 was measured by RTJ1, RTJ2, SGP1, M7297, RB-9211, and C-17 antibodies in 42 lung cancer patients. Survival analysis was done with the use of multiple cutoff points to reveal any prognostic classification. RESULTS: All ER antibodies were tightly correlated (Pearson's r(2) = 0.94-0.96; P < 0.0001) and western blotting confirmed their specificity in MCF-7 and BT474 cells. All EGFR antibodies but 2232 yielded specific results in western blotting; however, only 31G7 and 2-18C9 were strongly associated (Pearson's r(2) = 0.61; P < 0.0001). HER3 staining was nonspecific and nonreproducible. High EGFR-expressing patients had a worse prognosis when EGFR was measured with H11 or 31G7 (log rank P = 0.015 and P = 0.06). There was no statistically significant correlation between survival and EGFR detected by 2-18C9, 15F8, or polyclonal 2232 antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody validation is a critical analytic factor that regulates IHC readings in biomarker studies. Evaluation of IHC proficiency and quality control are key components toward IHC standardization. IMPACT: This work highlights the importance of IHC standardization and could result in the improvement of clinically relevant IHC protocols.