Performance of the cobas EZH2 mutation test on clinical samples from non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

OBJECTIVE: To present the technical verification and clinical validation of the companion diagnostic assay, cobas® EZH2 Mutation Test (cobas EZH2 Test), targeting gain-of-function EZH2 mutations in follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The focus is on patient clinical samples proving that the test met the performance criteria required for FDA approval of a companion diagnostic test. DESIGN: Epizyme, Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd., and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., collaborated to develop the cobas EZH2 Test on an RT-PCR platform. The assay design needed to detect the gain-of-function EZH2 mutations found in FL and DLBCL indications. Thus, the test was optimized for investigational purposes in a clinical trial setting. Part of its technical verification included testing of patient tumor samples with a documented diagnosis of FL and DLBCL procured from commercial vendors, and the clinical validation used patient samples from the Epizyme clinical study. Both the technical performance verification method correlation study (104 clinical commercially acquired samples) and the clinical validation accuracy study (341 patient samples from the therapeutic study) used next-generation sequencing as a reference method to establish true vs. false results by cobas EZH2 Test. The reproducibility study used a 15-member panel of DNA samples with varying EZH2 mutation status from procured clinical FL and DLBCL patient samples under multiple variables. RESULTS: Single and rare, infrequent double EZH2 mutations were detected in FL and DLBCL samples. Agreements between results from cobas EZH2 and sequencing were >98% from commercial clinical samples and from the therapeutic study clinical samples. The reproducibility study obtained 178 to 180 valid results for each panel member, with an overall invalid rate of 0.37%. The agreement for each per panel member was 100%. CONCLUSION: cobas EZH2 Test data demonstrated that the test is reliable and will perform well in a commercial customer environment.

A Grading System for Invasive Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma: A Proposal From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee.

INTRODUCTION: A grading system for pulmonary adenocarcinoma has not been established. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer pathology panel evaluated a set of histologic criteria associated with prognosis aimed at establishing a grading system for invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A multi-institutional study involving multiple cohorts of invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas was conducted. A cohort of 284 stage I pulmonary adenocarcinomas was used as a training set to identify histologic features associated with patient outcomes (recurrence-free survival [RFS] and overall survival [OS]). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to select the best model, which was validated (n = 212) and tested (n = 300, including stage I-III) in independent cohorts. Reproducibility of the model was assessed using kappa statistics. RESULTS: The best model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.749 for RFS and 0.787 for OS) was composed of a combination of predominant plus high-grade histologic pattern with a cutoff of 20% for the latter. The model consists of the following: grade 1, lepidic predominant tumor; grade 2, acinar or papillary predominant tumor, both with no or less than 20% of high-grade patterns; and grade 3, any tumor with 20% or more of high-grade patterns (solid, micropapillary, or complex gland). Similar results were seen in the validation (AUC = 0.732 for RFS and 0.787 for OS) and test cohorts (AUC = 0.690 for RFS and 0.743 for OS), confirming the predictive value of the model. Interobserver reproducibility revealed good agreement (k = 0.617). CONCLUSIONS: A grading system based on the predominant and high-grade patterns is practical and prognostic for invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

The Promises and Challenges of Tumor Mutation Burden as an Immunotherapy Biomarker: A Perspective from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies have revolutionized the management of patients with NSCLC and have led to unprecedented improvements in response rates and survival in a subset of patients with this fatal disease. However, the available therapies work only for a minority of patients, are associated with substantial societal cost, and may lead to considerable immune-related adverse events. Therefore, patient selection must be optimized through the use of relevant biomarkers. Programmed death-ligand 1 protein expression by immunohistochemistry is widely used today for the selection of programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor therapy in patients with NSCLC; however, this approach lacks robust sensitivity and specificity for predicting response. Tumor mutation burden (TMB), or the number of somatic mutations derived from next-generation sequencing techniques, has been widely explored as an alternative or complementary biomarker for response to ICIs. In theory, a higher TMB increases the probability of tumor neoantigen production and therefore, the likelihood of immune recognition and tumor cell killing. Although TMB alone is a simplistic surrogate of this complex interplay, it is a quantitative variable that can be relatively readily measured using currently available sequencing techniques. A large number of clinical trials and retrospective analyses, employing both tumor and blood-based sequencing tools, have evaluated the performance of TMB as a predictive biomarker, and in many cases reveal a correlation between high TMB and ICI response rates and progression-free survival. Many challenges remain before the implementation of TMB as a biomarker in clinical practice. These include the following: (1) identification of therapies whose response is best informed by TMB status; (2) robust definition of a predictive TMB cut point; (3) acceptable sequencing panel size and design; and (4) the need for robust technical and informatic rigor to generate precise and accurate TMB measurements across different laboratories. Finally, effective prediction of response to ICI therapy will likely require integration of TMB with a host of other potential biomarkers, including tumor genomic driver alterations, tumor-immune milieu, and other features of the host immune system. This perspective piece will review the current clinical evidence for TMB as a biomarker and address the technical sequencing considerations and ongoing challenges in the use of TMB in routine practice.

Implementing TMB measurement in clinical practice: considerations on assay requirements.

Clinical evidence demonstrates that treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy agents can have considerable benefit across multiple tumours. However, there is a need for the development of predictive biomarkers that identify patients who are most likely to respond to immunotherapy. Comprehensive characterisation of tumours using genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic approaches continues to lead the way in advancing precision medicine. Genetic correlates of response to therapy have been known for some time, but recent clinical evidence has strengthened the significance of high tumour mutational burden (TMB) as a biomarker of response and hence a rational target for immunotherapy. Concordantly, immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed clinical practice for lung cancer and melanoma, which are tumour types with some of the highest mutational burdens. TMB is an implementable approach for molecular biology and/or pathology laboratories that provides a quantitative measure of the total number of mutations in tumour tissue of patients and can be assessed by whole genome, whole exome, or large targeted gene panel sequencing of biopsied material. Currently, TMB assessment is not standardised across research and clinical studies. As a biomarker that affects treatment decisions, it is essential to unify TMB assessment approaches to allow for reliable, comparable results across studies. When implementing TMB measurement assays, it is important to consider factors that may impact the method workflow, the results of the assay, and the interpretation of the data. Such factors include biopsy sample type, sample quality and quantity, genome coverage, sequencing platform, bioinformatic pipeline, and the definitions of the final threshold that determines high TMB. This review outlines the factors for adoption of TMB measurement into clinical practice, providing an understanding of TMB assay considerations throughout the sample journey, and suggests principles to effectively implement TMB assays in a clinical setting to aid and optimise treatment decisions.

Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Immunohistochemistry Testing: A Review of Analytical Assays and Clinical Implementation in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Purpose Three programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors are currently approved for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment with pembrolizumab in NSCLC requires PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing. Nivolumab and atezolizumab are approved without PD-L1 testing, though US Food and Drug Administration-cleared complementary PD-L1 tests are available for both. PD-L1 IHC assays used to assess PD-L1 expression in patients treated with programmed death-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials include PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx (28-8), PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx (22C3), Ventana PD-L1 SP142 (SP142), and Ventana PD-L1 SP263 (SP263). Differences in antibodies and IHC platforms have raised questions about comparability among these assays and their diagnostic use. This review provides practical information to help physicians and pathologists understand analytical features and comparability of various PD-L1 IHC assays and their diagnostic use. Methods We reviewed and summarized published or otherwise reported studies (January 2016 to January 2017) on clinical trial and laboratory-developed PD-L1 IHC assays (LDAs). Studies assessing the effect of diagnostic methods on PD-L1 expression levels were analyzed to address practical issues related to tissue samples used for testing. Results High concordance and interobserver reproducibility were observed with the 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 clinical trial assays for PD-L1 expression on tumor cell membranes, whereas lower PD-L1 expression was detected with SP142. Immune-cell PD-L1 expression was variable and interobserver concordance was poor. Inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity had variable effects on PD-L1 expression. Concordance among LDAs was variable. Conclusion High concordance among 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 when assessing PD-L1 expression on tumor cell membranes suggests possible interchangeability of their clinical use for NSCLC but not for assessment of PD-L1 expression on immune cells. Development of LDAs requires stringent standardization before their recommendation for routine clinical use.

Molecular Testing for Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: How to Implement Evidence-Based Recommendations.

The recent discovery of relevant biomarkers has reshaped our approach to therapy selection for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. The unprecedented outcomes demonstrated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in molecularly defined cohorts of patients has underscored the importance of genetic profiling in this disease. Despite published guidelines on biomarker testing, successful tumor genotyping faces significant hurdles at both academic and community-based practices. Oncologists are now faced with interpreting large-scale genomic data from multiple tumor types, possibly making it difficult to stay current with practice standards in lung cancer. In addition, physicians' lack of time, resources, and face-to-face opportunities can interfere with the multidisciplinary approach that is essential to delivery of care. Finally, several challenges exist in optimizing the amount and quality of tissue for molecular testing. Recognizing the importance of biomarker testing, a series of advisory boards were recently convened to address these hurdles and clarify best practices. We reviewed these challenges and established recommendations to help optimize tissue acquisition, processing, and testing within the framework of a multidisciplinary approach.

Accurate detection of BRAF p.V600E mutations in challenging melanoma specimens requires stringent immunohistochemistry scoring criteria or sensitive molecular assays.

Malignant melanoma patients require BRAF mutation testing prior to initiating BRAF inhibitor therapy. Molecular testing remains the diagnostic gold standard, but recent work suggests that BRAF immunohistochemistry (IHC) confers comparable results. Sample attributes and scoring criteria that may affect BRAF IHC interpretation, however, are poorly defined. We investigated formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples with variable challenging interpretative attributes: metastases, core needle biopsies, sample tissues less than 60 mm(2), samples with greater than 50% necrosis, and/or samples with greater than 10% melanin pigmentation. Three pathologists independently scored 122 BRAF V600E IHC-labeled melanoma samples for percentage (0%-100%) of staining intensity (0-3+). Interscorer BRAF IHC discrepancies were resolved by consensus review. Lenient (≥1+, >0%) and stringent (≥2+, ≥10%) IHC scoring criteria were compared to BRAF V600 mutation (cobas) results (n = 118). Specimens with greater than 10% melanin pigmentation and metastatic samples produced the majority of interobserver IHC and IHC/cobas scoring discrepancies. Consensus review using stringent scoring criteria decreased the number of discrepant results, yielded very good interobserver reproducibility, and improved specificity and positive predictive value for BRAF p.V600E detection. BRAF p.V600K mutations accounted for 57.1% of false-negative IHC results when stringent, consensus criteria scoring were used. The cobas test detected 75.0% (8/12) of BRAF IHC-negative BRAF p.V600K mutations confirmed by next-generation sequencing. Molecular BRAF testing is the preferred screening test for BRAF inhibitor therapy eligibility because of superior sensitivity in challenging interpretative melanoma specimens. However, BRAF V600E IHC has excellent specificity and positive predictive value when stringent, consensus scoring criteria are implemented. To decrease IHC scoring discrepancies, pathologists should interpret metastatic and pigmented samples with caution.

A retrospective analysis of the clinical performance of human papillomavirus testing using SurePath sample collection.

INTRODUCTION: We present a retrospective analysis of our high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) test performance using SurePath samples, and we compare these results to published results from Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, where hr-HPV testing was performed using collection in standard transport medium. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively identified histopathologic cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ from 2010 through 2012, as well as all hr-HPV results performed from SurePath samples in these women. Testing for hr-HPV in our laboratory consisted of either Hybrid-Capture 2 or Cervista. These results were used to calculate false negative rates for CIN 2+, CIN 3+, and carcinoma, for both test methods, and these rates are compared with those published by Kaiser Permanente of Northern California. RESULTS: The false negative rate for hr-HPV testing from SurePath samples (combined Hybrid-Capture 2 and Cervista) at the histopathologic level of CIN2+ was 7.9% (95% confidence interval: 5.9-10.2). This is compared with the false negative rates from collection in standard transport medium reported by Kaiser Permanente of Northern California for CIN 2+ of 20.4% (95% confidence interval: 18.9-22.0). Similar calculations for CIN 3+ and carcinoma are presented, along with comparison to the Kaiser Permanente of Northern California results. With regard to false negative hr-HPV results, for all levels of histopathologic abnormality, our hr-HPV testing from SurePath samples showed either significantly better performance (for CIN 2+ regardless of method, CIN 3+ using Cervista), or equivalent performance (for CIN 3+ using Hybrid-Capture 2 and carcinoma regardless of method). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective analysis demonstrates that hr-HPV testing from SurePath samples meets the proposed sensitivity of ≥90% in cases of biopsy proven CIN 2+.