Fit-For-Purpose PD-L1 Biomarker Testing For Patient Selection in Immuno-Oncology: Guidelines For Clinical Laboratories From the Canadian Association of Pathologists-Association Canadienne Des Pathologistes (CAP-ACP).

Since 2014, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by various regulatory agencies for the treatment of multiple cancers including melanoma, lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, classical Hodgkin lymphoma, colorectal cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, hepatocellular cancer, and other solid tumors. Of these approved drug/disease combinations, a subset also has regulatory agency-approved, commercially available companion/complementary diagnostic assays that were clinically validated using data from their corresponding clinical trials. The objective of this document is to provide evidence-based guidance to assist clinical laboratories in establishing fit-for-purpose PD-L1 biomarker assays that can accurately identify patients with specific tumor types who may respond to specific approved immuno-oncology therapies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint. These recommendations are issued as 38 Guideline Statements that address (i) assay development for surgical pathology and cytopathology specimens, (ii) reporting elements, and (iii) quality assurance (including validation/verification, internal quality assurance, and external quality assurance). The intent of this work is to provide recommendations that are relevant to any tumor type, are universally applicable and can be implemented by any clinical immunohistochemistry laboratory performing predictive PD-L1 immunohistochemistry testing.

Diagnostic Accuracy in Fit-for-Purpose PD-L1 Testing.

PD-L1 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) has presented significant challenges not only for clinical laboratories, but also for external quality assurance (EQA) entities that provide proficiency testing (PT) for clinical laboratories. Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC) has used educational runs to explore approaches to sample design and analysis of results that would enhance patient safety. As PT for predictive biomarkers requires modeling at every level (design of the run, assessment of the run, and reporting of "pass" or "fail") based on "fit-for-purpose" principles, CIQC has applied those principles to PD-L1 PT runs. Each laboratory received unstained slides with TMA tissue cores from 104 randomly selected primary NSCLC and tonsil tissues to test with their current PD-L1 assay. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated against designated gold standards based on the "3D" approach (drug-disease-diagnostic assay). Depending on the selection of fit-for-purpose gold standards and also on the selection of what was considered fit-for-purpose cut-off points, great variation in the performance (accuracy) of both companion/complementary diagnostic assays and laboratory developed tests was seen. "Fit-for-purpose" in PT for PD-L1 testing entails that the purpose(s) of each PT run is declared a priori, that the PT program has selected/designated purpose-specific gold standard results for the PT challenge, and that the PT materials for the PT run are designed and constructed to enable calculations of diagnostic accuracy.

Developing ALK Immunohistochemistry and In Situ Hybridization Proficiency Testing for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada: Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control Challenges and Successes.

Intrachromosomal rearrangements involving the ALK gene are found in 3% to 5% of non-small cell lung cancers. Crizotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has been shown to prolong progression-free survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer harboring ALK gene rearrangements. In Canada, ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC) is used as a screening test before confirmation by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC) provides ALK (Lung Cancer) proficiency testing (PT) for Canadian IHC laboratories. Samples included 32 previously characterized cases (IHC and FISH) either from the Canadian ALK (CALK) project or from CIQC reference laboratories. The same design was used for both runs. A total of 20 laboratories participated in Run 1 and 22 in Run 2. Some laboratories participated in the anticipation of future need and used the PT exercise as a part of test development and validation. Results of the IHC testing were first self-reported using the CIQC TMA Scorer and then evaluated by expert assessment. FISH results were self-reported only. Participants also reported details about IHC and FISH protocols. The κ-values were calculated, for which values >0.80 were used as acceptable results, respectively. The pass rate between the 2 runs and between different primary antibodies were compared. Six of the 22 protocols (27%) in Run 1 and 15 of the 22 (68%) protocols in Run 2 passed the CIQC PT criteria for IHC testing. The increase in the pass rate for Run 2 was significant (P=0.03, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). All reported FISH results were correct. CALK laboratories had significantly higher κ-values than non-CALK laboratories (P=0.002, t test). PT for IHC for rare diseases such as ALK-positive lung cancer is feasible, but challenging. The academic nature of the CIQC program and collaboration on a national level facilitated the development of appropriate PT samples. Participating laboratories made use of the PT exercise either to confirm that their testing was properly calibrated or to improve their protocols, which was confirmed by the achievement of significantly better results in Run 2. They also used CIQC's PT program for new test development and optimization.

HER2/neu testing in gastric cancer by immunohistochemistry: assessment of interlaboratory variation.

CONTEXT: Immunohistochemical (IHC) testing for HER2/neu is becoming the standard of care for guiding adjuvant treatment of gastric carcinoma with trastuzumab. OBJECTIVE: To assess interlaboratory variation in IHC staining and interpretation across multiple laboratories. DESIGN: A tissue microarray consisting of 45 cores from 28 gastric cancers was distributed to 37 laboratories for HER2/neu assessment. The IHC results were compared against expert scores at an academic institution and correlated with in situ hybridization results from the originating specimen. Interlaboratory agreement was calculated using Cohen κ statistic. RESULTS: The survey demonstrated several variations in IHC methods, including the primary antibodies in use. There was excellent agreement among laboratories in HER2/neu(+) (IHC 3(+)) cases (κ = 0.80 ± 0.01) and very good agreement among laboratories in HER2/neu(-) (IHC 0 or 1(+)) cases (κ = 0.58 ± 0.01). Less agreement was observed among laboratories when scoring equivocal (IHC 2(+)) cases (κ = 0.22 ± 0.01). Sensitivity and specificity of HER2/neu IHC were 99% and 100%, respectively, when measured against expert review and consensus score as a reference standard. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial interlaboratory agreement in the interpretation of HER2/neu IHC despite variability in protocols. Although HER2/neu IHC is a highly sensitive and specific test, primary antibody selection may significantly affect IHC results. Furthermore, gastric tumors require a unique scoring system and expertise in interpretation. Intratumoral heterogeneity has a significant effect on HER2/neu scoring by IHC. Ongoing quality assurance exercises among laboratories will help ensure optimized HER2/neu testing.

Standardization of negative controls in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: recommendations from the international ad hoc expert panel.

Standardization of controls, both positive and negative controls, is needed for diagnostic immunohistochemistry (dIHC). The use of IHC-negative controls, irrespective of type, although well established, is not standardized. As such, the relevance and applicability of negative controls continues to challenge both pathologists and laboratory budgets. Despite the clear theoretical notion that appropriate controls serve to demonstrate the sensitivity and specificity of the dIHC test, it remains unclear which types of positive and negative controls are applicable and/or useful in day-to-day clinical practice. There is a perceived need to provide "best practice recommendations" for the use of negative controls. This perception is driven not only by logistics and cost issues, but also by increased pressure for accurate IHC testing, especially when IHC is performed for predictive markers, the number of which is rising as personalized medicine continues to develop. Herein, an international ad hoc expert panel reviews classification of negative controls relevant to clinical practice, proposes standard terminology for negative controls, considers the total evidence of IHC specificity that is available to pathologists, and develops a set of recommendations for the use of negative controls in dIHC based on "fit-for-use" principles.

Academic and nonacademic laboratories perform equally on CIQC immunohistochemistry proficiency testing.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether academic centers (ACs) are more successful than nonacademic centers (NACs) in immunohistochemistry (IHC) external quality assessment challenges in the Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC) program. METHODS: Results of 9 CIQC challenges for breast cancer marker (BM) and various non-breast cancer marker (NBM) tests were examined. Success rates were compared between AC/NAC laboratories and those located in small or large cities. Performance was also correlated with annual IHC case volumes. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in performance in any of the comparisons. However, overall performance on BM was significantly better (P < .0001, t test) than on NBM tests regardless of AC/NAC nature or city size. The mean failure rate on NBM was approximately twice that of BM tests. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that recent emphasis on breast hormone IHC quality assurance has led to improved test quality.

Utility of a CEA, CD15, calretinin, and CK5/6 panel for distinguishing between mesotheliomas and pulmonary adenocarcinomas in clinical practice.

Most reports on antibodies that claimed to separate mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma originated from academic centers or specialized immunohistochemistry laboratories, but little is known about how such stains perform in general practice laboratories. The Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control program circulates tissue array slides to laboratories across Canada; these are stained and then interpreted by the local laboratory and by a set of experienced reviewers. For Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control run 16, tissue array slides from 16 pulmonary adenocarcinomas and 6 mesotheliomas were stained in 36 different laboratories for CEA, CD15, CK5/6, and calretinin. A total of 736 results (cores) were interpretable. If 3 of 4 staining results concordant with the diagnosis was accepted as definitive, 166/192 (86.4%) mesothelioma cores and 461/544 (84.7%) adenocarcinoma cores were correctly diagnosed. However, if 4 of 4 concordant markers were required, then 93/192 (48.4%) mesothelioma cores and 265/544 (48.7%) adenocarcinoma cores were correctly diagnosed. Only 3/192 (1.6%) mesothelioma cores were incorrectly classified as carcinomas and 8/544 (1.5%) of adenocarcinoma cores incorrectly classified as mesotheliomas on the basis of the immunoprofile (ie, 3 of 4 or 4 of 4 marker results were discordant with the diagnosis). We conclude that, in a study based on results from nonspecialized laboratories, the combination of CEA, CD15, calretinin, and CK5/6, used as a panel, has a very low false-positive rate when separating pulmonary adenocarcinomas from mesotheliomas; however, single negative or incorrect results are common, therefore the panel is only useful diagnostically if 3 of 4 correct results are deemed acceptable for diagnosis.

Development of an evidence-based approach to external quality assurance for breast cancer hormone receptor immunohistochemistry: comparison of reference values.

CONTEXT: External quality assurance and proficiency testing programs for breast cancer predictive biomarkers are based largely on traditional ad hoc design; at present there is no universal consensus on definition of a standard reference value for samples used in external quality assurance programs. OBJECTIVE: To explore reference values for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor immunohistochemistry in order to develop an evidence-based analytic platform for external quality assurance. DESIGN: There were 31 participating laboratories, 4 of which were previously designated as "expert" laboratories. Each participant tested a tissue microarray slide with 44 breast carcinomas for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor and submitted it to the Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control Program for analysis. Nuclear staining in 1% or more of the tumor cells was a positive score. Five methods for determining reference values were compared. RESULTS: All reference values showed 100% agreement for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor scores, when indeterminate results were excluded. Individual laboratory performance (agreement rates, test sensitivity, test specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and κ value) was very similar for all reference values. Identification of suboptimal performance by all methods was identical for 30 of 31 laboratories. Estrogen receptor assessment of 1 laboratory was discordant: agreement was less than 90% for 3 of 5 reference values and greater than 90% with the use of 2 other reference values. CONCLUSIONS: Various reference values provide equivalent laboratory rating. In addition to descriptive feedback, our approach allows calculation of technical test sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values, agreement rates, and κ values to guide corrective actions.

The laboratory score/reference method score ratio (LSRSR) is a novel tool for monitoring laboratory performance in immunohistochemistry proficiency testing of hormone receptors in breast cancer: the CIQC experience.

Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC) operates an academic proficiency testing (PT) program using a traditional expert panel-based qualitative assessment system. The image analysis approach is increasingly considered for use in PT to follow demand for precision in immunohistochemical test calibration. CIQC introduces and explores the usefulness of a novel image analysis-based tool, the laboratory score/reference method score ratio (LSRSR) for PT. Two CIQC runs with 33 and 57 participants, respectively, were analyzed for interlaboratory concordance for estrogen receptor results using expert panel-based and LSRSR systems. Samples included tissue microarrays with 40 tissue cores each. The LSRSR was calculated from participants' and reference laboratory H scores measured by image analysis. We found lower concordance with reference method results for participating laboratories by LSRSR than those reported by the expert panel; although the expert panel observed those differences, it was not able to measure them without LSRSR. LSRSR may be useful in monitoring laboratory performance for quantitative immunohistochemical testing.

Inappropriate calibration and optimisation of pan-keratin (pan-CK) and low molecular weight keratin (LMWCK) immunohistochemistry tests: Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC) experience.

AIMS: Pan-cytokeratin (pan-CK) and low molecular weight cytokeratin (LMWCK) tests are the most common immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests used to support evidence of epithelial differentiation. Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC), a new provider of proficiency testing for Canadian clinical IHC laboratories, has evaluated the performance of Canadian IHC laboratories in two proficiency testing challenges for both pan-CK and LMWCK. METHODS: CIQC has designed a 70-sample tissue microarray (TMA) for challenge 1 and a 30-sample TMA for challenge 2. There were 13 participants in challenge 1, and 62 in challenge 2. All results were evaluated and scored by CIQC assessors and compared with reference laboratory results. RESULTS: Participating laboratories often produced false-negative results that ranged from 20% to 80%. False-positive results were also detected. About half of participating clinical laboratories have inappropriately calibrated IHC tests for pan-CK and LMWCK, which are the most commonly used markers for demonstration of epithelial differentiation. The great majority of laboratories were not aware of the problem with calibration of pan-CK and LMWCK tests because of inappropriate selection of external positive controls and samples for optimisation of these tests. Benign liver and kidney are the most important tissues to include as positive controls for both pan-CK and LMWCK. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in external quality assurance is important for peer comparison and proper calibration of IHC tests, which is also helpful for appropriate selection of positive control material and material for optimisation of the tests.

Improved breast cancer biomarker detection through a simple, high frequency, low cost external proficiency testing program.

AIMS: We describe a simple, low cost, high frequency immunohistochemistry external proficiency testing program, and show how its use can lead to improved breast cancer biomarker detection. METHODS: Over a 30 month period in British Columbia, Canada, we used tissue microarray slides to follow the performance of twelve clinical laboratories in nine separate external proficiency testing runs. Sensitivity for detection of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 were calculated for each laboratory, biomarker, and run. RESULTS: Mean sensitivities for detection of ER, PR, and HER2 were 97.1%, 84.8%, and 90.7%, respectively. HER2 sensitivity improved over time, from 87.0% to 92.9% (p=0.04), with a trend towards improvement seen for PR (81.9-88.1%, p=0.13). ER sensitivities were high throughout the test period. Improvements occurred without mandating any specific laboratory changes. CONCLUSIONS: This simple, low cost, high frequency external proficiency testing program is highly sustainable and can be implemented in any multi-institutional group or region.

Implementation of a Canadian external quality assurance program for breast cancer biomarkers: an initiative of Canadian Quality Control in immunohistochemistry (cIQc) and Canadian Association of Pathologists (CAP) National Standards Committee/Immunohistochemistry.

Immunohistochemistry results for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are used to guide breast carcinoma patient management and it is essential to monitor these tests in external quality assurance (EQA) programs. Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control is a web-based program with novel approach to EQA. Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control RUN2 included tissue microarray slides with 38 samples tested by 18 immunohistochemical laboratories. Deidentified results were posted for viewing at www.ciqc.ca including all used protocols matched with scanned slides for virtual microscopy and garrattograms. Sensitivity, specificity, Kendall W test (concordance between laboratories), and kappa statistics (agreement with designated reference values) were calculated. Kappa values were within the target range (>0.8, or "near perfect" agreement) for 85% results. Kendall coefficient was 0.942 for estrogen receptor, 0.930 for progesterone receptor, and 0.958 for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. The anonymous participation, quick feedback, and unrestricted full access in EQA results provides rapid insight into technical or interpretive deficiencies, allowing appropriate corrective action to be taken whereas the use of tissue microarrays enables meaningful statistical analysis.