Search

Introduction: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is required to determine the eligibility for pembrolizumab monotherapy in advanced NSCLC worldwide and for several other indications depending on the country. Four assays have been approved/ Communauté Européene-In vitro Diagnostic (CV-IVD)-marked, but PD-L1 IHC seems diversely implemented across regions and laboratories with the application of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs)., Method: To assess the practice of PD-L1 IHC and identify issues and disparities, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee conducted a global survey for pathologists from January to May 2019, comprising multiple questions on preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical conditions., Result: A total of 344 pathologists from 64 countries participated with 41% from Europe, 24% from North America, and 18% from Asia. Besides biopsies and resections, cellblocks were used by 75% of the participants and smears by 11%. The clone 22C3 was most often used (69%) followed by SP263 (51%). They were applied as an LDT by 40% and 30% of the users, respectively, and 76% of the participants developed at least one LDT. Half of the participants reported a turnaround time of less than or equal to 2 days, whereas 13% reported that of greater than or equal to 5 days. In addition, quality assurance (QA), formal training for scoring, and standardized reporting were not implemented by 18%, 16%, and 14% of the participants, respectively., Conclusions: Heterogeneity in PD-L1 testing is marked across regions and laboratories in terms of antibody clones, IHC assays, samples, turnaround times, and QA measures. The lack of QA, formal training, and standardized reporting stated by a considerable minority identifies a need for additional QA measures and training opportunities., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The recent development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has led to promising advances in the treatment of patients with NSCLC and SCLC with advanced or metastatic disease. Most ICIs target programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis with the aim of restoring antitumor immunity. Multiple clinical trials for ICIs have evaluated a predictive value of PD-L1 protein expression in tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) by immunohistochemistry (IHC), for which different assays with specific IHC platforms were applied. Of those, some PD-L1 IHC assays have been validated for the prescription of the corresponding agent for first- or second-line treatment. However, not all laboratories are equipped with the dedicated platforms, and many laboratories have set up in-house or laboratory-developed tests that are more affordable than the generally expensive clinical trial-validated assays. Although PD-L1 IHC test is now deployed in most pathology laboratories, its appropriate implementation and interpretation are critical as a predictive biomarker and can be challenging owing to the multiple antibody clones and platforms or assays available and given the typically small size of samples provided. Because many articles have been published since the issue of the IASLC Atlas of PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Testing in Lung Cancer, this review by the IASLC Pathology Committee provides updates on the indications of ICIs for lung cancer in 2019 and discusses important considerations on preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical aspects of PD-L1 IHC testing, including specimen type, validation of assays, external quality assurance, and training., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)