Assessment of Patient-Derived Xenograft Growth and Antitumor Activity: The NCI PDXNet Consensus Recommendations.

Although patient-derived xenografts (PDX) are commonly used for preclinical modeling in cancer research, a standard approach to in vivo tumor growth analysis and assessment of antitumor activity is lacking, complicating the comparison of different studies and determination of whether a PDX experiment has produced evidence needed to consider a new therapy promising. We present consensus recommendations for assessment of PDX growth and antitumor activity, providing public access to a suite of tools for in vivo growth analyses. We expect that harmonizing PDX study design and analysis and assessing a suite of analytical tools will enhance information exchange and facilitate identification of promising novel therapies and biomarkers for guiding cancer therapy.

Proceedings From the ASCO/College of American Pathologists Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Predictive Biomarker Summit.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy represents one of the great advances in the field of oncology, highlighted by the Nobel Prize in 2018. Multiple predictive biomarkers for ICI benefit have been proposed. These include assessment of programmed death ligand-1 expression by immunohistochemistry, and determination of mutational genotype (microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency or tumor mutational burden) as a reflection of neoantigen expression. However, deployment of these assays has been challenging for oncologists and pathologists alike. METHODS: To address these issues, ASCO and the College of American Pathologists convened a virtual Predictive Factor Summit from September 14 to 15, 2021. Representatives from the academic community, US Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Institutes of Health, health insurance organizations, pharmaceutical companies, in vitro diagnostics manufacturers, and patient advocate organizations presented state-of-the-art predictive factors for ICI, associated problems, and possible solutions. RESULTS: The Summit provided an overview of the challenges and opportunities for improvement in assay execution, interpretation, and clinical applications of programmed death ligand-1, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, and tumor mutational burden-high for ICI therapies, as well as issues related to regulation, reimbursement, and next-generation ICI biomarker development. CONCLUSION: The Summit concluded with a plan to generate a joint ASCO/College of American Pathologists strategy for consideration of future research in each of these areas to improve tumor biomarker tests for ICI therapy.

Perspectives on statistical strategies for the regulatory biomarker qualification process.

Qualification of a biomarker for use in a medical product development program requires a statistical strategy that aligns available evidence with the proposed context of use (COU), identifies any data gaps to be filled and plans any additional research required to support the qualification. Accumulating, interpreting and analyzing available data is outlined, step-by-step, illustrated by a qualified enrichment biomarker example and a safety biomarker in the process of qualification. The detailed steps aid requestors seeking qualification of biomarkers, allowing them to organize the available evidence and identify potential gaps. This provides a statistical perspective for assessing evidence that parallels clinical considerations and is intended to guide the overall evaluation of evidentiary criteria to support a specific biomarker COU.

Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group.

Ki67 immunohistochemistry (IHC), commonly used as a proliferation marker in breast cancer, has limited value for treatment decisions due to questionable analytical validity. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) consensus meeting, held in October 2019, assessed the current evidence for Ki67 IHC analytical validity and clinical utility in breast cancer, including the series of scoring studies the IKWG conducted on centrally stained tissues. Consensus observations and recommendations are: 1) as for estrogen receptor and HER2 testing, preanalytical handling considerations are critical; 2) a standardized visual scoring method has been established and is recommended for adoption; 3) participation in and evaluation of quality assurance and quality control programs is recommended to maintain analytical validity; and 4) the IKWG accepted that Ki67 IHC as a prognostic marker in breast cancer has clinical validity but concluded that clinical utility is evident only for prognosis estimation in anatomically favorable estrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative patients to identify those who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy. In this T1-2, N0-1 patient group, the IKWG consensus is that Ki67 5% or less, or 30% or more, can be used to estimate prognosis. In conclusion, analytical validity of Ki67 IHC can be reached with careful attention to preanalytical issues and calibrated standardized visual scoring. Currently, clinical utility of Ki67 IHC in breast cancer care remains limited to prognosis assessment in stage I or II breast cancer. Further development of automated scoring might help to overcome some current limitations.

Establishing guidelines to harmonize tumor mutational burden (TMB): in silico assessment of variation in TMB quantification across diagnostic platforms: phase I of the Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project.

BACKGROUND: Tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of interrogated genomic sequence, demonstrates predictive biomarker potential for the identification of patients with cancer most likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors. TMB is optimally calculated by whole exome sequencing (WES), but next-generation sequencing targeted panels provide TMB estimates in a time-effective and cost-effective manner. However, differences in panel size and gene coverage, in addition to the underlying bioinformatics pipelines, are known drivers of variability in TMB estimates across laboratories. By directly comparing panel-based TMB estimates from participating laboratories, this study aims to characterize the theoretical variability of panel-based TMB estimates, and provides guidelines on TMB reporting, analytic validation requirements and reference standard alignment in order to maintain consistency of TMB estimation across platforms. METHODS: Eleven laboratories used WES data from The Cancer Genome Atlas Multi-Center Mutation calling in Multiple Cancers (MC3) samples and calculated TMB from the subset of the exome restricted to the genes covered by their targeted panel using their own bioinformatics pipeline (panel TMB). A reference TMB value was calculated from the entire exome using a uniform bioinformatics pipeline all members agreed on (WES TMB). Linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between WES and panel TMB for all 32 cancer types combined and separately. Variability in panel TMB values at various WES TMB values was also quantified using 95% prediction limits. RESULTS: Study results demonstrated that variability within and between panel TMB values increases as the WES TMB values increase. For each panel, prediction limits based on linear regression analyses that modeled panel TMB as a function of WES TMB were calculated and found to approximately capture the intended 95% of observed panel TMB values. Certain cancer types, such as uterine, bladder and colon cancers exhibited greater variability in panel TMB values, compared with lung and head and neck cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing uptake of TMB as a predictive biomarker in the clinic creates an urgent need to bring stakeholders together to agree on the harmonization of key aspects of panel-based TMB estimation, such as the standardization of TMB reporting, standardization of analytical validation studies and the alignment of panel-based TMB values with a reference standard. These harmonization efforts should improve consistency and reliability of panel TMB estimates and aid in clinical decision-making.

An international multicenter study to evaluate reproducibility of automated scoring for assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer.

The nuclear proliferation biomarker Ki67 has potential prognostic, predictive, and monitoring roles in breast cancer. Unacceptable between-laboratory variability has limited its clinical value. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group investigated whether Ki67 immunohistochemistry can be analytically validated and standardized across laboratories using automated machine-based scoring. Sets of pre-stained core-cut biopsy sections of 30 breast tumors were circulated to 14 laboratories for scanning and automated assessment of the average and maximum percentage of tumor cells positive for Ki67. Seven unique scanners and 10 software platforms were involved in this study. Pre-specified analyses included evaluation of reproducibility between all laboratories (primary) as well as among those using scanners from a single vendor (secondary). The primary reproducibility metric was intraclass correlation coefficient between laboratories, with success considered to be intraclass correlation coefficient >0.80. Intraclass correlation coefficient for automated average scores across 16 operators was 0.83 (95% credible interval: 0.73-0.91) and intraclass correlation coefficient for maximum scores across 10 operators was 0.63 (95% credible interval: 0.44-0.80). For the laboratories using scanners from a single vendor (8 score sets), intraclass correlation coefficient for average automated scores was 0.89 (95% credible interval: 0.81-0.96), which was similar to the intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87 (95% credible interval: 0.81-0.93) achieved using these same slides in a prior visual-reading reproducibility study. Automated machine assessment of average Ki67 has the potential to achieve between-laboratory reproducibility similar to that for a rigorously standardized pathologist-based visual assessment of Ki67. The observed intraclass correlation coefficient was worse for maximum compared to average scoring methods, suggesting that maximum score methods may be suboptimal for consistent measurement of proliferation. Automated average scoring methods show promise for assessment of Ki67 scoring, but requires further standardization and subsequent clinical validation.

Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment.

Technological developments and greater rigor in the quantitative measurement of biological features in medical images have given rise to an increased interest in using quantitative imaging biomarkers to measure changes in these features. Critical to the performance of a quantitative imaging biomarker in preclinical or clinical settings are three primary metrology areas of interest: measurement linearity and bias, repeatability, and the ability to consistently reproduce equivalent results when conditions change, as would be expected in any clinical trial. Unfortunately, performance studies to date differ greatly in designs, analysis method, and metrics used to assess a quantitative imaging biomarker for clinical use. It is therefore difficult or not possible to integrate results from different studies or to use reported results to design studies. The Radiological Society of North America and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance with technical, radiological, and statistical experts developed a set of technical performance analysis methods, metrics, and study designs that provide terminology, metrics, and methods consistent with widely accepted metrological standards. This document provides a consistent framework for the conduct and evaluation of quantitative imaging biomarker performance studies so that results from multiple studies can be compared, contrasted, or combined.

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials.

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI), in collaboration with scientists representing multiple areas of expertise relevant to 'omics'-based test development, has developed a checklist of criteria that can be used to determine the readiness of omics-based tests for guiding patient care in clinical trials. The checklist criteria cover issues relating to specimens, assays, mathematical modelling, clinical trial design, and ethical, legal and regulatory aspects. Funding bodies and journals are encouraged to consider the checklist, which they may find useful for assessing study quality and evidence strength. The checklist will be used to evaluate proposals for NCI-sponsored clinical trials in which omics tests will be used to guide therapy.

Statistical challenges in the evaluation of treatments for small patient populations.

The development of a new treatment typically involves evaluation of its efficacy in a large clinical trial in which patients are randomly assigned either the new treatment or the standard of care. Results from these large randomized clinical trials allow for a definitive and unbiased assessment of the clinical benefit of the new treatment over the standard one. For rare diseases or for small patient subgroups identified within the context of a common disease, it may not be possible to conduct a large randomized trial. In this Review, we discuss alternative clinical study designs and statistical challenges that arise when attempting to assure that study results yield robust conclusions about the safety and effectiveness of a new medical product.

Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group.

Uncontrolled proliferation is a hallmark of cancer. In breast cancer, immunohistochemical assessment of the proportion of cells staining for the nuclear antigen Ki67 has become the most widely used method for comparing proliferation between tumor samples. Potential uses include prognosis, prediction of relative responsiveness or resistance to chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, estimation of residual risk in patients on standard therapy and as a dynamic biomarker of treatment efficacy in samples taken before, during, and after neoadjuvant therapy, particularly neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Increasingly, Ki67 is measured in these scenarios for clinical research, including as a primary efficacy endpoint for clinical trials, and sometimes for clinical management. At present, the enormous variation in analytical practice markedly limits the value of Ki67 in each of these contexts. On March 12, 2010, an international panel of investigators with substantial expertise in the assessment of Ki67 and in the development of biomarker guidelines was convened in London by the co-chairs of the Breast International Group and North American Breast Cancer Group Biomarker Working Party to consider evidence for potential applications. Comprehensive recommendations on preanalytical and analytical assessment, and interpretation and scoring of Ki67 were formulated based on current evidence. These recommendations are geared toward achieving a harmonized methodology, create greater between-laboratory and between-study comparability, and allow earlier valid applications of this marker in clinical practice.