Search

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) enumeration and molecular profiling hold promise in revolutionizing the management of solid tumors. Their understanding has evolved significantly over the past two decades, encompassing pivotal biological discoveries and clinical studies across various malignancies. While for some tumor types, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, CTCs are ready to enter clinical practice, for others, additional research is required. CTCs serve as versatile biomarkers, offering insights into tumor biology, metastatic progression, and treatment response. This review summarizes the latest advancements in CTC research and highlights future directions of investigation. Special attention is given to concurrent evaluations of CTCs and other circulating biomarkers, particularly circulating tumor DNA. Multi-analyte assessment holds the potential to unlock the full clinical capabilities of liquid biopsy. In conclusion, CTCs represent a transformative biomarker in precision oncology, offering extraordinary opportunities to translate scientific discoveries into tangible improvements in patient care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Singhal S. has received consulting fees from Oncohost. Fusco N. has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Menarini, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Adicet Bio, Sysmex, Reply, Veracyte Inc., Sakura, Leica Biosystems, Lilly. Cristofanilli M reports personal fees from Lilly, Sermonix, Data Genomics, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Celcuity, Iylon, and Ellipses and grants and personal fees from Pfizer, AZ and Menarini. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Rolfo C. is a speaker for Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, COR2ED, Daiichi Sankyo, Physicians Education Resource, and Roche (CH); has research collaborations (nonfinancial support) with Guardant Health; advisory board activity: Archer, Inivata, Bayer U.C. LLC, Boston pharmaceutical, CEA, MD Serono, General Dynamics, MedStar, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme-Regeneron. Provides expert testimony to Intellisphere, scientific board for Imagene, and is a coordinating PI for MD Serono Global PI LUNG itrapid@024 trial. Research grant from LCRF-Pfizer unrelated to the current work. Gandara D.R. received honoraria from Merck, research funding from Merck, Amgen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Astex Pharmaceuticals, and has consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, OncoCyte, IO Biotech, Roche/Genentech, and Adagene. Kasi P.M. reports personal fees from Foundation Medicine, MSD Oncology/Merck, Tempus, Bayer, Lilly, Delcath Systems, QED Therapeutics, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, SAGA Diagnostics, Illumina, BostonGene, Guardant Health, and Taiho; personal fees and other support from Elicio Therapeutics; other support from Precision Biosensors Inc.; and grants from Merck, Novartis, and Agenus Bio. Malapelle U. received personal fees (consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Thermo Fisher Scientifics, Eli Lilly, Diaceutics, GSK, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Diatech, Novartis, and Hedera. The other authors declare no competing interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Mutations in the estrogen receptor alpha gene (ESR1) can lead to resistance to endocrine therapy (ET) in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/ HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). ESR1 mutations can be detected in up to 40 % of patients pretreated with ET in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Data from prospective randomized trials highlight those patients with HR+/HER2- MBC with detectable ESR1 mutations experience better outcomes when receiving novel selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs). There is a high need for optimizing ESR1 testing strategies on liquid biopsy samples in HR+/HER2- MBC, including a hugh quality workflow implementation and molecular pathology reporting standardization. Our manuscript aims to elucidate the clinical and biological rationale for ESR1 testing in MBC, while critically examining the currently available guidelines and recommendations for this specific type of molecular testing on ctDNA. The objective will extend to the critical aspects of harmonization and standardization, specifically focusing on the pathology laboratory workflow. Finally, we propose a clear and comprehensive model for reporting ESR1 testing results on ctDNA in HR+/HER2- MBC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E.G-R. has relevant relationship (advisory fees, honoraria, travel accommodation and expenses, grants, and non-financial support) with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific unrelated to the current work. C.C. reported grants from Gilead, Seagen, personal fees from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. G.C. reports funding from Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Merck; consulting fees from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Merck, Seagen, Ellipsis; honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly; support for attending meetings from Roche, Pfizer. C.R. has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, and MSD; advisory board honoraria from Inivata, Archer, Boston Pharmaceuticals, MD Serono, and Novartis; and institutional research funding for his work as Coordinating Principal Investigator from Pfizer and EMD Serono. U.M. has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Eli Lilly, Diaceutics, GSK, Merck and AstraZeneca, Janssen, Diatech, Novartis and Hedera. N.F. has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Menarini, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Adicet Bio, Sysmex, Reply, Veracyte Inc., Sakura, Leica Biosystems, Lilly. These companies had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and/or in the decision to publish the results. All other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) represents a significant clinical challenge due to limited therapeutic options and poor prognosis. Beyond mere survivorship, setting up an effective framework to improve functioning and quality of life is an urgent need in the comprehensive management of MPM patients. Therefore, this study aims to review the current understanding of MPM sequelae and the effectiveness of rehabilitative interventions in the holistic approach to MPM. A narrative review was conducted to summarize MPM sequelae and their impact on functioning, disability, and quality of life, focusing on rehabilitation interventions in MPM management and highlighting gaps in knowledge and areas for further investigation. Our findings showed that MPM patients experience debilitating symptoms, including fatigue, dyspnea, pain, and reduced exercise tolerance, decreasing quality of life. Supportive and rehabilitative interventions, including pulmonary rehabilitation, physical exercise improvement, psychological support, pain management, and nutritional supplementation, seem promising approaches in relieving symptoms and improving quality of life but require further research. These programs emphasize the pivotal synergy among patient-tailored plans, multidisciplinary team involvement, and disease-specific focus. Despite advancements in therapeutic management, MPM remains a challenging disease with limited effective interventions that should be adapted to disease progressions. Rehabilitative strategies are essential to mitigate symptoms and improve the quality of life in MPM patients. Further research is needed to establish evidence-based guidelines for rehabilitative interventions tailored to the unique needs of MPM patients.

Aims: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPIs) represent a standard of care for the clinical management of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). The recognition of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) has emerged as a predictive biomarker of response for first-line PARPIs treatment in patients with HGOSC. On the other hand, this test is extremely complex and therefore it is often externalised. Regrettably, the reliability of outsourced HRD testing can be troubled by inconclusive results and high rejection rates. In this methodological study, we assessed the technical feasibility, interassay and interlaboratory reproducibility of in-house HRD testing using three different commercially available next-generation sequencing assays., Methods: A total of n=20 epithelial ovarian cancer samples previously analysed with MyChoice CDx were subjected to HRD retesting using three different platforms in three different major pathology laboratories, that is, SOPHiA DDM HRD Solution, HRD focus and Oncomine homologous recombination repair pathway predesigned panel. Concordance was calculated by Cohen's (dual) and Fleiss (triple) κ coefficients., Results: In-house BRCA1/2 molecular testing yielded a concordance rate >90.0% among all participating centres. HRD scores were successfully calculated by each institution with a concordance rate of 76.5%. Concerning the external gold standard test, the overall percentage of agreement ranged from 80.0% to 90.0% with a positive percentage agreement ranging from 75.0% to 80.0% and a negative percentage agreement ranging from 80.0% to 100%., Conclusions: In-house testing for HRD can be reliably performed with commercially available next-generation sequencing assays., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EG-R has relevant relationship (advisory fees, honoraria, travel accommodation and expenses, grants and non-financial support) with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific unrelated to the current work. MF reports research funding (to Institution) from QED, Macrophage pharma, Astellas, Diaceutics; personal honoraria as invited speaker from Roche, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, GSK, Novartis, Amgen; participation in advisory board for Amgen, Astellas, Roche, Merck Serono, GSK, Novartis, Janssen unrelated to the current work. NF reports honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo unrelated to the current work. CDA Consulting/Advisor: Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen Honoraria: Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly. Research funding to the institution: Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo. Travel, accommodation, expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer unrelated to the current work. GV reports speaking honoraria from PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis and GSK-Tesaro and travel grants from GSK-Tesaro and PharmaMar and has been part of the advisory boards of Tesaro, Amgen and PharmaMar outside of the submitted work. UM has received personal fees (as consultant and/or speaker bureau) from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Eli Lilly, Diaceutics, GSK, Merck and AstraZeneca, Janssen, Diatech, Novartis and Hedera unrelated to the current work. GT reports personal fees (as speaker bureau or advisor) from Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, BMS, GSK, Menarini, AstraZeneca, Amgen and Bayer, unrelated to the current work. MB has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speakers’ bureau, travel, accommodation, expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche/Genetech, AstraZeneca, Thermo Fisher Scientific, GSK and Illumina unrelated to the current work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Multigene prognostic genomic assays have become indispensable in managing early breast cancer (EBC), offering crucial information for risk stratification and guiding adjuvant treatment strategies in conjunction with traditional clinicopathological parameters. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines endorse these assays, though some clinical contexts still lack definitive recommendations. The dynamic landscape of EBC management demands further refinement and optimization of genomic assays to streamline their incorporation into clinical practice. The breast cancer community is poised at the brink of transformative advances in enhancing the clinical utility of genomic assays, aiming to significantly improve the precision and effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment for women with EBC. This article methodically examines the testing methodologies, clinical validity and utility, costs, diagnostic frameworks, and methodologies of the established genomic tests, including the Oncotype Dx Breast Recurrence Score ® , MammaPrint, Prosigna ® , EndoPredict ® , and Breast Cancer Index (BCI). Among these tests, Prosigna and EndoPredict ® have at present been validated only on a prognostic level, while Oncotype Dx, MammaPrint, and BCI hold both a prognostic and predictive role. Oncologists and pathologists engaged in the management of EBC will find in this review a thorough comparison of available genomic assays, as well as strategies to optimize the utilization of the information derived from them.

Effective risk assessment in early breast cancer is essential for informed clinical decision-making, yet consensus on defining risk categories remains challenging. This paper explores evolving approaches in risk stratification, encompassing histopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular biomarkers alongside cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. Leveraging machine learning, deep learning, and convolutional neural networks, AI is reshaping predictive algorithms for recurrence risk, thereby revolutionizing diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning. Beyond detection, AI applications extend to histological subtyping, grading, lymph node assessment, and molecular feature identification, fostering personalized therapy decisions. With rising cancer rates, it is crucial to implement AI to accelerate breakthroughs in clinical practice, benefiting both patients and healthcare providers. However, it is important to recognize that while AI offers powerful automation and analysis tools, it lacks the nuanced understanding, clinical context, and ethical considerations inherent to human pathologists in patient care. Hence, the successful integration of AI into clinical practice demands collaborative efforts between medical experts and computational pathologists to optimize patient outcomes., Competing Interests: M.I. received honoraria from Agilent Technologies Denmark ApS and Diaceutics PLC. C.S. received honoraria for consulting, advisory roles, speaker bureaus, and/or research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Roche SPA, Novartis, Menarini, Veracyte Inc. G.d.A. received honoraria for consulting, advisory roles, and speaker bureaus from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo. G.C. received honoraria from Roche and others from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Ellipsis, Veracyte, Exact Science, Celcuity, Merck, BMS, Gilead, Sanofi, Menarini. N.F. received honoraria for consulting, advisory roles, speaker bureaus, travel, and/or research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Menarini, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Adicet Bio, Sermonix, Reply, Veracyte Inc., Leica Biosystems, and Lilly. These companies had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. All other authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Introduction: Biomarker testing is mandatory for the clinical management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Myriads of technical platforms are now available for biomarker analysis with differences in terms of multiplexing capability, analytical sensitivity, and turnaround time (TAT). We evaluated the technical performance of the diagnostic workflows of 24 representative Italian institutions performing molecular tests on a series of artificial reference specimens built to mimic routine diagnostic samples., Methods: Sample sets of eight slides from cell blocks of artificial reference specimens harboring exon 19 EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) p.E746_AT50del, exon 2 KRAS (Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue) p.G12C, ROS1 (c-ros oncogene 1)-unknown gene fusion, and MET (MET proto-oncogene, receptor tyrosine kinase) Δ exon 14 skipping were distributed to each participating institution. Two independent cell block specimens were validated by the University of Naples Federico II before shipment. Methodological and molecular data from reference specimens were annotated., Results: Overall, a median DNA concentration of 3.3 ng/µL (range 0.1-10.0 ng/µL) and 13.4 ng/µL (range 2.0-45.8 ng/µL) were obtained with automated and manual technical procedures, respectively. RNA concentrations of 5.7 ng/µL (range 0.2-11.9 ng/µL) and 9.3 ng/µL (range 0.5-18.0 ng/µL) were also detected. KRAS exon 2 p.G12C, EGFR exon 19 p.E736_A750del hotspot mutations, and ROS1 aberrant transcripts were identified in all tested cases, whereas 15 out of 16 (93.7%) centers detected MET exon 14 skipping mutation., Conclusions: Optimized technical workflows are crucial in the decision-making strategy of patients with NSCLC. Artificial reference specimens enable optimization of diagnostic workflows for predictive molecular analysis in routine clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: PIK3CA gene mutations occur in approximately 40% of hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR + /HER2 - ) metastatic breast cancers (MBCs), electing them to targeted therapy. Testing PIK3CA status is complex due to selection of biological specimen and testing method. Materials & methods: This work investigates real-life experience on PIK3CA testing in HR + /HER2 - MBC. Clinical, technical and molecular data on PIK3CA testing were collected from two referral laboratories. Additionally, the results of a nationwide PIK3CA survey involving 116 institutions were assessed. Results: Overall, n = 35 MBCs were PIK3CA -mutated, with mutations mostly occurring in exons 9 (n = 19; 51.4%) and 20 (n = 15; 40.5%). The nationwide survey revealed significant variability across laboratories in terms of sampling methodology, technical assessment and clinical report signing healthcare figures for PIK3CA molecular testing in diagnostic routine practice. Conclusion: This study provides insights into the real-world routine of PIK3CA testing in HR + /HER2 - MBC and highlights the need for standardization and networking in predictive pathology.

PD-L1 test is recommended in different types of tumors to select patients eligible for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) therapy. Several factors make this test challenging in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Different assays and platforms are available, each associated with distinct scoring systems and threshold values specific to the ICI compound used, i.e. CPS≥10 for pembrolizumab and IC ≥ 1 % for atezolizumab. Our objective was to assess the consistency of PD-L1 testing in mTNBC by examining interobserver and interassay reproducibility. We assessed n = 60 mTNBC samples for PD-L1 testing using 22C3 pharmDx assay on a Dako Autostainer Link 48 and VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) on a Ventana BenchMark Ultra. Additionally, a subset of n = 19 samples was tested using the SP142 assay, also on the Ventana BenchMark Ultra. CPS with both 22C3 and SP263 was independently evaluated by five pathologists, all certified PD-L1 trainers. The IC with SP142 was assessed by three of these pathologists, who have particular expertise in breast pathology. Following the computation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each assay and their respective thresholds, we assessed the agreement between different raters and assays using Fleiss's κ, with a 95 % confidence interval (CI). Overall, we observed a significant (p < 0.001) ICC with both CPS assays [22C3 = 0.939 (CI:0.913-0.96); SP263 = 0.972 (CI:0.96-0.982); combined 22C3-SP263 = 0.909 (CI:0.874-0.938)]. Fleiss's κ confirmed an almost perfect agreement among pathologists and assays: 22C3 = 0.938 (CI:0.857-1.018); SP263 = 0.972 (CI:0.890-1.052); combined 22C3-SP263 = 0.907 (CI:0.869-0.945). Perfect inter-rater agreement was reached considering IC. This study establishes the reliability of assessing CPS in mTNBC using either the 22C3 pharmDx, as employed in the KEYNOTE studies, or the VENTANA SP263 assay. Each assay must be used on its designated platform, namely the Dako for 22C3 pharmDx and the Ventana for VENTANA SP263. It is important to remark that CPS and IC identify different patient cohorts and, therefore, are not interchangeable., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest M.I. has received honoraria from Agilent Technologies Denmark ApS. B.C. has received honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dome (MSD), Novartis and Roche. C.C. served as advisory/consultancy role/speaker bureau for Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Seagen and MSD, all outside the submitted work. G.C. reports funding from Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Merck; consulting fees from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Merck, Seagen, Ellipsis; honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly; support for attending meetings from Roche, Pfizer. E.G-R has relevant relationship (advisory fees, honoraria, travel accommodation and expenses, grants and non-financial support) with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific unrelated to the current work. P.G. has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Amgen, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. GdA has received honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dome (MSD), Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Daiichi Sankyo. N.F. has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Menarini, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Diaceutics, Adicet Bio, Sermonix, Reply, Leica Biosystems. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Since the release of the DESTINY-Breast04 (DB-04) trial findings in June 2022, the field of pathology has seen a renaissance of HER2 as a predictive biomarker in breast cancer. The trial focused on patients with metastatic breast cancer who were classified as "HER2-low," i.e., those with immunohistochemistry (IHC) HER2 1 + or 2 + and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) results. The study revealed that treating these patients with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) instead of the oncologist's chosen chemotherapy led to outstanding improvements in survival. This has challenged the existing binary HER2 pathological classification system, which categorized tumors as either positive (overexpression/amplification) or negative, as per the ASCO/CAP 2018 guideline reaffirmed by ASCO/CAP 2023 guideline update. Given that DB-04 excluded patients with HER2 IHC score 0 status, the results of the ongoing DB-06 trial may shed further light on the potential benefits of T-DXd therapy for these patients. Roughly half of all breast cancers are estimated to belong to the HER2-low category, which does not represent a distinct or specific subtype of cancer. Instead, it encompasses a diverse group of tumors that exhibit clinical, morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular variations. However, HER2-low offers a distinctive biomarker status that identifies a specific therapeutic regimen (i.e., T-DXd) linked to a favorable prognosis in breast cancer. This unique association emphasizes the importance of accurately identifying these tumors. Differentiating between a HER2 IHC score 0 and score 1 + has not been clinically significant until now. To ensure accurate classification and avoid misdiagnosis, it is necessary to adopt standardized procedures, guidelines, and specialized training for pathologists in interpreting HER2 expression in the lower spectrum. Additionally, the utilization of artificial intelligence holds promise in supporting this endeavor. Here, we address the current state of the art and unresolved issues in assessing HER2-low status, with a particular emphasis on the score 0. We explore the dilemma surrounding the exclusion of HER2-zero patients from potentially beneficial therapy based on traditional HER2 testing. Additionally, we examine the clinical context, considering that DB-04 primarily involved heavily pretreated late-stage metastatic breast cancers. We also delve into emerging evidence suggesting that extrapolating HER2-low status from the original diagnosis may lead to misleading results. Finally, we provide recommendations for conducting high-quality testing and propose a standardized pathology report in compliance with 2023 ASCO/CAP updates and 2023 ESMO consensus statements on HER2-low breast cancer., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Currently, main treatment strategies for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC) disease are surgery or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), with successful local control rates for both approaches. However, regional and distant failure remain critical in SBRT, and it is paramount to identify predictive factors of response to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from more aggressive approaches. The main endpoint of the MONDRIAN trial is to identify multi-omic biomarkers of SBRT response integrating information from the individual fields of radiomics, genomics and proteomics., Methods: MONDRIAN is a prospective observational explorative cohort clinical study, with a data-driven, bottom-up approach. It is expected to enroll 100 ES-NSCLC SBRT candidates treated at an Italian tertiary cancer center with well-recognized expertise in SBRT and thoracic surgery. To identify predictors specific to SBRT, MONDRIAN will include data from 200 patients treated with surgery, in a 1:2 ratio, with comparable clinical characteristics. The project will have an overall expected duration of 60 months, and will be structured into five main tasks: (i) Clinical Study; (ii) Imaging/ Radiomic Study, (iii) Gene Expression Study, (iv) Proteomic Study, (v) Integrative Model Building., Discussion: Thanks to its multi-disciplinary nature, MONDRIAN is expected to provide the opportunity to characterize ES-NSCLC from a multi-omic perspective, with a Radiation Oncology-oriented focus. Other than contributing to a mechanistic understanding of the disease, the study will assist the identification of high-risk patients in a largely unexplored clinical setting. Ultimately, this would orient further clinical research efforts on the combination of SBRT and systemic treatments, such as immunotherapy, with the perspective of improving oncological outcomes in this subset of patients., Trial Registration: The study was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05974475)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

This work explores the complex field of HER2 testing in the HER2-low breast cancer era, with a focus on methodological aspects. We aim to propose clear positions to scientific societies, institutions, pathologists, and oncologists to guide and shape the appropriate diagnostic strategies for HER2-low breast cancer. The fundamental question at hand is whether the necessary tools to effectively translate our knowledge about HER2 into practical diagnostic schemes for the lower spectrum of expression are available. Our investigation is centered on the significance of distinguishing between an immunohistochemistry (IHC) score 0 and score 1+ in light of the clinical implications now apparent, as patients with HER2-low breast cancer become eligible for trastuzumab-deruxtecan treatment. Furthermore, we discuss the definition of HER2-low beyond its conventional boundaries and assess the reliability of established diagnostic procedures designed at a time when therapeutic perspectives were non-existent for these cases. In this regard, we examine potential complementary technologies, such as gene expression analysis and liquid biopsy. Ultimately, we consider the potential role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of digital pathology and its integration into HER2 testing, with a particular emphasis on its application in the context of HER2-low breast cancer., (Copyright © 2023 Società Italiana di Anatomia Patologica e Citopatologia Diagnostica, Divisione Italiana della International Academy of Pathology.)

Activating mutations of the estrogen receptor alpha gene (ESR1) are common mechanisms of endocrine therapy (ET) resistance in hormone receptor-positive (HR + )/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recent clinical findings emphasize that both old and new generations of selective ER degraders (SERDs) demonstrate enhanced clinical effectiveness in patients with MBC who have detectable ESR1 mutations via liquid biopsy. This stands in contrast to individuals with MBC carrying these mutations and undergoing conventional endocrine monotherapies like aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Liquid biopsy, particularly the analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), has emerged as a promising, minimally invasive alternative to conventional tissue-based testing for identifying ESR1 mutations. Within the context of the PADA-1 and EMERALD trials, distinct molecular methodologies and assays, specifically digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS), have been employed to evaluate the mutational status of ESR1 within ctDNA. This manuscript critically examines the advantages and indications of various ctDNA testing methods on liquid biopsy for HR+/HER2-negative MBC. Specifically, we delve into the capabilities of ddPCR and NGS in identifying ESR1 mutations. Each methodology boasts unique strengths and limitations: ddPCR excels in its analytical sensitivity for pinpointing hotspot mutations, while NGS offers comprehensive coverage of the spectrum of ESR1 mutations. The significance of meticulous sample handling and timely analysis is emphasized, acknowledging the transient nature of cfDNA. Furthermore, we underscore the importance of detecting sub-clonal ESR1 mutations, as these variants can exert a pivotal influence on predicting both endocrine therapy resistance and responsiveness to SERDs. In essence, this work discusses the role of ctDNA analysis for detecting ESR1 mutations and their implications in tailoring effective therapeutic strategies for HR+/HER2- MBC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Estrogen receptor (ER) loss at metastatic relapse occurs in up to 20% of luminal-like primary breast tumors. Data about clinicopathological features associated with ER loss and its prognostic significance are limited., Methods: In a nested-case-control study, we compared clinicopathological characteristics and clinical outcomes between a cohort of 51 patients with primary ER+ /HER2- and paired triple-negative metastasis (LUM-TN) and two control cohorts of paired early-metastatic ER+ /HER2- (LUM-LUM, n = 50) and triple-negative (TN-TN, n = 49) breast cancers. Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were assessed according to the TILs Working Group recommendations as continuous and discrete variables with cutoffs (20%, 40%)., Results: LUM-TN tumors had lower ER expression than LUM-LUM tumors, but lower grade and Ki67 than TN-TN cases. Median distant-metastasis free survival was similar for LUM-TN and LUM-LUM cohorts, but significantly longer than in TN-TN cases (log-rank P < 0.001). LUM-TN and TN-TN cohorts had a comparable survival from the time of metastatic recurrence, which was significantly shorter than in patients with LUM-LUM tumors (log-rank P < 0.001). High TILs were associated with worse outcomes in patients with ER loss (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Breast tumors with ER loss at metastatic relapse have intermediate features and outcomes compared with metastatic luminal-like and ab initio triple-negative tumors. Further investigation on the biological mechanisms underpinning the loss of ER expression is ongoing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Stefania Morganti: Payment for educational material writing: WebMD, remedyhealthmedia. Nicola Fusco: consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants: Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Menarini, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Adicet Bio, Sermonix, Reply, Veracyte Inc., Leica Biosystems, Lilly. Chiara Corti: consultancy/advisory role/speaker bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo. Institutional research funding: Seagen, Gilead. These companies had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and/or in the decision to publish the results. Giuseppe Curigliano: consultancy/advisory role/speaker bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer biomarker profiling predominantly relies on tissue testing (surgical and/or biopsy samples). However, the field of liquid biopsy, particularly the analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), has witnessed remarkable progress and continues to evolve rapidly. The incorporation of ctDNA-based testing into clinical practice is creating new opportunities for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). ctDNA offers advantages over conventional tissue analyses, as it reflects tumour heterogeneity and enables multiple serial biopsies in a minimally invasive manner. Thus, it serves as a valuable complement to standard tumour tissues and, in certain instances, may even present a potential alternative approach. In the context of MBC, ctDNA testing proves highly informative in the detection of disease progression, monitoring treatment response, assessing actionable biomarkers, and identifying mechanisms of resistance. Nevertheless, ctDNA does exhibit inherent limitations, including its generally low abundance, necessitating timely blood samplings and rigorous management of the pre-analytical phase. The development of highly sensitive assays and robust bioinformatic tools has paved the way for reliable ctDNA analyses. The time has now come to establish how ctDNA and tissue analyses can be effectively integrated into the diagnostic workflow of MBC to provide patients with the most comprehensive and accurate profiling. In this manuscript, we comprehensively analyse the current methodologies employed in ctDNA analysis and explore the potential benefits arising from the integration of tissue and ctDNA testing for patients diagnosed with MBC., (© 2023 The Authors. Cytopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Pembrolizumab has received approval as a first-line treatment for unresectable/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of ≥ 10. However, assessing CPS in mTNBC poses challenges. Firstly, it represents a novel analysis for breast pathologists. Secondly, the heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression in mTNBC further complicates the assessment. Lastly, the lack of standardized assays and staining platforms adds to the complexity. In KEYNOTE trials, PD-L1 expression was evaluated using the IHC 22C3 pharmDx kit as a companion diagnostic test. However, both the 22C3 pharmDx and VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) assays are validated for CPS assessment. Consequently, assay-platform choice, staining conditions, and scoring methods can significantly impact the testing outcomes. This consensus paper aims to discuss the intricacies of PD-L1 CPS testing in mTNBC and provide practical recommendations for pathologists. Additionally, we present findings from a nationwide Italian survey elucidating the state-of-the-art in PD-L1 CPS testing in mTNBC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Nicola Fusco has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Diaceutics, Adicet Bio, and Sermonix. Mariia Ivanova from Agilent Technologies Denmark ApS. Carmen Criscitiello reports personal fees for consulting, advisory role, and speakers’ bureau from Lilly, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Bruna Cerbelli from MSD and Novartis. Fabio Pagni from MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Amgen. Mauro Mastropasqua from Exact Sciences. Alfredo Santinelli from Roche-Ventana, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Amgen. Giuseppe Curigliano has received honoraria for speaker’s engagement: Roche, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, NanoString, Samsung, Celltrion, BMS, MSD; Honoraria for providing consultancy: Roche, Seattle Genetics, NanoString; Honoraria for participating in Advisory Board: Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Samsung, Celltrion, Mylan; Honoraria for writing engagement: Novartis, BMS; Honoraria for participation in Ellipsis Scientific Affairs Group; Institutional research funding for conducting phase I and II clinical trials: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Servier, Orion, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Tesaro, BMS, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp Dome, Janssen-Cilag, Philogen, Bayer, Medivation, Medimmune. Elena Guerini-Rocco from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Biocartis, Exact Science, GSK, and Illumina. Paolo Graziano Consulting/Honoraria from Eli-Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, Amgen. Giulia d’Amati from MSD, Roche, Astrazeneca, Daiichi Sankyo. These companies had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and/or in the decision to publish the results. All other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The recent advancements in breast cancer precision medicine have highlighted the urgency for the precise and reproducible characterization of clinically actionable biomarkers. Despite numerous standardization efforts, biomarker testing by conventional methodologies is challenged by several issues such as high inter-observer variabilities, the spatial heterogeneity of biomarkers expression, and technological heterogeneity. In this respect, artificial intelligence-based digital pathology approaches are being increasingly recognized as promising methods for biomarker testing and subsequently improved clinical management. Here, we provide an overview on the most recent advances for artificial intelligence-assisted biomarkers testing in breast cancer, with a particular focus on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, programmed death-ligand 1, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase catalytic alpha, and estrogen receptor 1. Challenges and solutions for this integrative analysis in pathology laboratories are also provided., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer during pregnancy (PrBC) is a rare condition known for its aggressive clinical behavior. The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) has been shown to have a significant impact on the prognosis of these patients. Despite some biological characteristics of the tumor that may differ depending on the gestational age, little is known about the dynamics of the immune landscape within the tumor microenvironment (TME) in PrBC. Therefore, in this study, our objective was to gain comprehensive insights into the relationship between gestational age at breast cancer diagnosis and the composition of the TME., Methods: n = 108 PrBC were selected from our institutional registry and categorized based on the gestational age by trimester. For all cases, TILs were profiled according to the International TILs Working Group recommendations, and subtyped by CD4, CD8, and forkhead box P3 (FOXP3) immunohistochemistry. PD-L1 was tested according to the combined positive score (CPS) using the IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay, with a cutoff value of ≥10 for positivity. The statistical approach encompassed Fisher's and Chi-squared tests, with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons, logistic regression models, and survival analyses based on the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: The proportion of patients with poorly differentiated (G3) neoplasms increased as the gestational age advanced (first trimester, n = 25, 56.8%; second trimester, n = 27, 69.2%; third trimester, n = 21, 87.5%; p = 0.03). The histologic subtypes as well as the hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status did not show significant changes across different pregnancy trimesters. In the HR+/HER2- subtype, there was a higher proportion of tumors with high/moderate TILs in the early phases of pregnancy, similar to FOXP3 expression (TILs: first trimester, n = 10, 35.7%; second trimester, n = 2, 10.5%; third trimester, n = 0; p = 0.02; FOXP3: first trimester, n = 10, 40%; second trimester, n = 3, 15.8%; third trimester, n = 0; p  = 0.03). The median follow-up for our cohort was 81 months. Patients who relapsed after a breast cancer diagnosis during the first trimester were more frequently PD-L1-negative, unlike those with no disease recurrence ( n = 9, 100% vs. n = 9, 56.3%; p = 0.03; hormone therapy and n = 9, 100% vs. n = 7, 53.9%; p = 0.02; chemotherapy). No statistically significant differences were seen among the three trimesters in terms of survival outcome., Conclusion: The TME dynamics of HR+/HER2- PrBC vary based on gestational age, suggesting that immune tolerance expression during later gestational age could explain the increased aggressiveness of tumors diagnosed at that stage., Competing Interests: GV has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, and/or speaker bureau from Merck Sharp & Dohme MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Dako, Roche/Genetech, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Bayer, Daiichi, Sankyo, Menarini, Ventana Medical Systems Dako/Agilent Technologies, Cepheid, and Celgene. NF has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants from MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline GSK, Gilead, Diaceutics, Adicet Bio, and Sermonix. FP from Merck, Ipsen, and Roche Diagnostics. EG-R from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Biocartis, Exact Science, GSK, and Illumina. These companies had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and/or in the decision to publish the results. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Sajjadi, Venetis, Ivanova, Noale, Blundo, Di Loreto, Scarfone, Ferrero, Maggi, Veronesi, Galimberti, Viale, Peccatori, Fusco and Guerini-Rocco.)

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) poses a significant challenge in terms of prognosis and disease recurrence. The limited treatment options and the development of resistance to chemotherapy make it particularly difficult to manage these patients. However, recent research has been shifting its focus towards biomarker-based approaches for TNBC, with a particular emphasis on the tumor immune landscape. Immune biomarkers in TNBC are now a subject of great interest due to the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in these tumors. This characteristic often coincides with the presence of PD-L1 expression on both neoplastic cells and immune cells within the tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, a subset of TNBC harbor mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) TNBC, which is frequently accompanied by microsatellite instability (MSI). All of these immune biomarkers hold actionable potential for guiding patient selection in immunotherapy. To fully capitalize on these opportunities, the identification of additional or complementary biomarkers and the implementation of highly customized testing strategies are of paramount importance in TNBC. In this regard, this article aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art in immune-related biomarkers for TNBC. Specifically, it focuses on the various testing methodologies available and sheds light on the immediate future perspectives for patient selection. By delving into the advancements made in understanding the immune landscape of TNBC, this study aims to contribute to the growing body of knowledge in the field. The ultimate goal is to pave the way for the development of more personalized testing strategies, ultimately improving outcomes for TNBC patients.