Multi-Institutional Study of Pathologist Reading of the Programmed Cell Death Ligand-1 Combined Positive Score Immunohistochemistry Assay for Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.

The assessment of the expression of programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) using immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been controversial since its introduction. The methods of assessment and the range of assays and platforms contribute to confusion. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of PD-L1 IHC is the combined positive score (CPS) method of interpretation of IHC results. Although the CPS method is prescribed for more indications than any other PD-L1 scoring system, its reproducibility has never been rigorously assessed. In this study, we collected a series of 108 gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer cases, stained them using the Food and Drug Administration-approved 22C3 assay, scanned them, and then circulated them to 14 pathologists at 13 institutions for the assessment of interpretative concordance for the CPS system. We found that higher cut points (10 or 20) performed better than a CPS of <1 or >1. We used the Observers Needed to Evaluate Subjective Tests algorithm to assess how the CPS system might perform in the real-world setting and found that the cut points of <1 or >1 showed an overall percent agreement of only 30% among the pathologist raters, with a plateau occurring at 8 raters. The raters performed better at higher cut points. However, the best cut point of <20 versus that of >20 was still disappointing, with a plateau at an overall percent agreement of 70% (at 7 raters). Although there is no ground truth for CPS, we compared the score with quantitative messenger RNA measurement and showed no relationship between the score (at any cut point) and messenger RNA amount. In summary, we showed that CPS shows high subjective variability among pathologist readers and is likely to perform poorly in the real-world setting. This system may be the root cause of the poor specificity and relatively low predictive value of IHC companion diagnostic tests for PD-1 axis therapies that use the CPS system.

Programmed Death-Ligand 1 and Programmed Death-Ligand 2 mRNAs Measured Using Closed-System Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Are Associated With Outcome and High Negative Predictive Value in Immunotherapy-Treated NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become standard of care in lung cancer management, but only a relatively small percentage of patients treated respond. Current predictive biomarkers, including immunohistochemical detection of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), are insufficient for determining who will respond or, more importantly in the adjuvant setting, who will not respond to ICI therapy. Here, we investigate an alternative method of assessment of PD-L1 to predict nonresponse. METHODS: This study uses a research use only quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on the GeneXpert system, to test for the association between four target immune genes, CD274 (PD-L1), PDCD1LG2 (programmed death-ligand 2 [PD-L2]), CD8A, and IRF1, and response to ICI therapy. Tissues were collected from 122 patients with advanced NSCLC before ICI therapy in a retrospective cohort, macrodissected, and analyzed using the GeneXpert. RESULTS: Both high PD-L1 and PD-L2 mRNA expression levels were associated with improved long-term benefit at 24 months (p = 0.047 for both PD-L1 and PD-L2) and overall survival (PD-L1, p = 0.048; PD-L2, p = 0.049). Both PD-L1 and PD-L2 mRNA levels were higher in patients with KRAS mutations. Most importantly, low PD-L1 mRNA level had a high negative predictive value of 0.92 for absence of long-term benefit. CONCLUSIONS: With further validation of this assay in low-stage patients, an assessment of PD-L1 mRNA rather than protein, could be a method to determine which low-stage patients that should not be treated with ICIs in the adjuvant setting. This approach may also be a useful objective method for selecting patients for treatment in the advanced setting.

Closed system RT-qPCR as a potential companion diagnostic test for immunotherapy outcome in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In melanoma, there is no companion diagnostic test to predict response to programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) axis immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. In the adjuvant setting, only one in five patients may benefit from ICI, so a biomarker is needed to select those that may or may not benefit. Here, we test a new 4-gene multiplex immunotherapy panel with research use only (RUO) prototype mRNA expression profile on the GeneXpert closed system using real-time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) for association with clinical benefit after treatment with ICI therapy in metastatic melanoma patients. METHODS: Pretreatment formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections from melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 therapy (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or ipilimumab plus nivolumab) between 2011 and 17 were selected from the Yale Pathology archives. FFPE sections were macrodissected to enrich for tumor for quantitative assessment of CD274 (PD-L1), PDCD1LG2 (PD-L2), CD8A, and IRF1 by RT-qPCR multiplex mRNA panel. Multiplex panel transcript levels were correlated with clinical benefit (complete response [CR], partial response [PR], stable disease [SD]); disease outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]); and protein levels assessed by quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF). RESULTS: Transcript levels were significantly higher in responders (CR/PR/SD) than in nonresponders (PD) for CD8A (p = 0.0001) and IRF1 (p = 0.0019). PFS was strongly associated with high CD274 (p = 0.0046), PDCD1LG2 (p = 0.0039), CD8A (p = 0.0002), and IRF1 (p = 0.0030) mRNA expression. Similar associations were observed for OS with high CD274 (p = 0.0004), CD8A (p = 0.0030), and IRF1 (p = 0.0096) mRNA expression. Multivariate analyses revealed significant PFS and OS associations with immunotherapy panel markers independent of baseline variables. Exploratory analyses revealed a novel significant association of high combined CD274 & PDCD1LG2 (L1/L2) transcript expression with PFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.0011), which remained significant at a multivariate level for both PFS (HR = 0.31) and OS (HR = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Individual immunotherapy panel markers CD274, PDCD1LG2, CD8A, IRF1 and a combined L1/L2 mRNA levels show promising associations with melanoma immunotherapy outcome. The turnaround time of the test (2 h) and easy standardization of the platform makes this an attractive approach for further study in the search for predictive biomarkers for ICI.

Development of a 90-Minute Integrated Noninvasive Urinary Assay for Bladder Cancer Detection.

PURPOSE: Despite suboptimal sensitivity urine cytology is often performed as an adjunct to cystoscopy for bladder cancer diagnosis. We aimed to develop a noninvasive, fast molecular diagnostic test for bladder cancer detection with better sensitivity than urine cytology while maintaining adequate specificity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urine specimens were collected at 18 multinational sites from subjects prior to cystoscopy or tumor resection, and from healthy and other control subjects without evidence of bladder cancer. The levels of 10 urinary mRNAs were measured in a training cohort of 483 subjects and regression analysis was used to identify a 5-mRNA model to predict cancer status. The performance of the GeneXpert® Bladder Cancer Assay, an assay labeled for investigational use only to detect the 5 mRNAs ABL1, CRH, IGF2, ANXA10 and UPK1B, was evaluated in an independent test cohort of 450 participants. RESULTS: In the independent test cohort the assay ROC curve AUC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.92). At an example cutoff point of 0.4 overall sensitivity was 73% while specificity was 90% and 77% in the hematuria and surveillance patient populations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a 90-minute, urine based test that is simple to perform for the detection of bladder cancer. The test can help guide physician decision making in the management of bladder cancer. Additional evaluation in a prospective study is needed to establish the clinical usefulness of this assay.