Zübeyde EKİN, Ali VERAL, Deniz NART, Pınar SAVAŞ

Comparison of PD-L1, EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 Status Between Surgical Samples and Cytological Samples in Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

Background: The expression levels of Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma tyrosine kinase gene (ALK), and proto-oncogene tyrosineprotein kinase 1 ROS (ROS1) are important for targeted treatment selection in advanced lung cancer. Most patients with lung cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage and have no chance of surgery. For this reason, the accuracy and reliability of cytology samples for detecting those markers is important in patients whose histological sampling cannot be performed. Aims: To test the compatibility of histological and cytological sample analysis results of EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PDL-1 in patients with NSCLC and to determine the adequacy of cytological analysis for PD-L1 expression. Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Methods: The results of 231 patients whose PD-L1 was studied in 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. We excluded 11 inappropriate samples. A total of 220 samples were distributed as follows; 66 (30.0%) cytology specimens, 64 (29.1%) small histology biopsies, and 90 (40.9%) surgical biopsies. EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1 analysis were performed in 139, 134, 116, and 220 patients, respectively. Samples containing >400 cells were considered suitable for molecular cytological study. Results: A total of 154 (70.0%) histological (surgical biopsy) and 66 (30.0%) cytology samples were analyzed. There was no statistically significant difference between histological and cytological samples in terms of cellular adequacy for all molecular markers [EGFR: 93.7% and 90.9% (P = .556), ALK: 97.8% and 95.3% (P = .436) , ROS1: 89.9% vs. 91.9% (P = .729), PD-L1: 95.5% vs. 92.4% (P = .364)]. There was no statistically significant difference in the expression positivity rates of all biomarkers between histological and cytological samples [EGFR: 9.0% vs. 2.5% (P = .018), ALK: 7.9% vs. 9.8% (P = .719), ROS1 : 1.4% vs. 2.9% (P = .591), PD-L1: 54.4% vs. 41.0% (P = .078)]. Conclusion: The cellular adequacy of cytology specimens for molecular testing in patients with NSCLC is satisfactory. This study shows that EGFR, ALK, ROS-1 and PDL-1 expression rates in cytological samples are not statistically different from histological samples.

PDF

___

1. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54(1):8-29. [CrossRef]
2. Lastwika KJ, Wilson W, Li QK, et al. Control of PD-L1 expression by oncogenic activation of the AKT-mTOR pathway in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2016;76(2):227-238. [CrossRef]
3. Miyata K, Morita S, Dejima H, et al. Cytological markers for predicting ALK-positive pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol. 2017;45(11):963-970. [CrossRef]
4. Zito Marino FZ, Rossi G, Brunelli M, et al. Diagnosis of anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement in cytological samples through a fluorescence in situ hybridization – based assay: cytological smears versus cell blocks. Cancer Cytopathology. 2017;125(5):303-312. [CrossRef]
5. Toh CK. The changing epidemiology of lung cancer. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;472:397- 411. [CrossRef]
6. Munari E. Expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 in non – small cell lung cancer : comparison between cytologic smears, core biopsies, and whole sections using the SP263 assay. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127(1):52-61. [CrossRef]
7. Witkiewicz AK, Dasgupta A, Sammons S, et al. Loss of stromal caveolin-1 expression predicts poor clinical outcome in triple negative and basal-like breast cancers. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010;10(2):135-143. [CrossRef]
8. Tian SK, Killian JK, Rekhtman N, et al. Optimizing workflows and processing of cytologic samples for comprehensive analysis by next-generation sequencing: MemorialSloan Kettering Cancer Center experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(11):1200- 1205. [CrossRef]
9. Rekhtman N, Brandt SM, Sigel CS, et al. Suitability of thoracic cytology for new therapeutic paradigms in non-small cell lung carcinoma: high accuracy of tumor subtyping and feasibility of EGFR and KRAS molecular testing. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(3):451-458. [CrossRef]
10. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB, et al. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(6):828-860. [CrossRef]
11. Leighl NB, Rekhtman N, Biermann WA, et al. Molecular testing for selection of patients with lung cancer for epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors: American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the College of American Pathologists/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/Association for Molecular Pathology Guideline. Internat J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(32):3673-3679. [CrossRef]
12. Sadullahoğlu C, Yaman B, Veral A, Nart D. The diagnostic value of cell blocks in liquid-based cytology of bronchial aspiration and bronchial brushing materials. Cytopathology. 2018;29(2):156-162. [CrossRef]
13. Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1–positive non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823-1833. [CrossRef]
14. Wang H, Agulnik J, Kasymjanova G, et al. Cytology cell blocks are suitable for immunohistochemical testing for PD-L1 in lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(6):1417- 1422. [CrossRef]
15. Stoy SP, Rosen L, Mueller J, Murgu S. Programmed death-ligand 1 testing of lung cancer cytology specimens obtained with bronchoscopy. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(2):122-128. [CrossRef]
16. Pang B, Matthias D, Ong CW, et al. The positive impact of cytological specimens for EGFR mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer: a single South East Asian laboratory’s analysis of 670 cases. Cytopathology. 2012;23(4):229-236. [CrossRef]
17. Bravaccini S, Tumedei MM, Ulivi P, et al. ALK translocation detection in non-small cell lung cancer cytological samples obtained by TBNA or EBUS-TBNA. Cytopathology. 2016;27(2):103-107. [CrossRef]
18. Minca EC, Lanigan CP, Reynolds JP, et al. ALK status testing in non-small-cell lung carcinoma by FISH on ThinPrep slides with cytology material. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9(4):464-468. [CrossRef]
19. Savic S, Bubendorf L. Common fluorescence in situ hybridization applications in cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(12):1323-1330. [CrossRef]
20. Bozzetti C, Nizzoli R, Tiseo M, et al. ALK and ROS1 rearrangements tested by fluorescence in situ hybridization in cytological smears from advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. Diagn Cytopathol. 2015;43(11):941-946. [CrossRef]
21. Noll B, Wang WL, Gong Y, et al. Programmed death ligand 1 testing in Non – small cell lung carcinoma cytology cell block and aspirate smear preparations. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(5):342-352. [CrossRef]
22. Sakakibara R, Inamura K, Tambo Y, et al. EBUS-TBNA as a promising method for the evaluation of tumor PD-L1 expression in lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2017;18(5):527-534.e1. [CrossRef]
23. Heymann JJ, Bulman WA, Swinarski D, Pagan CA. PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung carcinoma: comparison among cytology, small biopsy, and surgical resection specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125(12):896-907. [CrossRef]
24. Betz BL, Dixon CA, Weigelin HC, Knoepp SM, Roh MH. The use of stained cytologic direct smears for ALK gene rearrangement analysis of lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121(9):489-499. [CrossRef]
25. Aisner DL, Sams SB. The role of cytology specimens in molecular testing of solid tumors: techniques, limitations, and opportunities. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012;40(6):511- 524. [CrossRef]
26. Bellevicine C, Malapelle U, de Luca C, Iaccarino A, Troncone G. EGFR analysis: current evidence and future directions. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42(11):984-992. [CrossRef]
27. Lin CY, Yang CK, Ou YC, et al. Long-term outcome of robotic partial nephrectomy for renal angiomyolipoma. Asian J Surg. 2018;41(2);1-5. [CrossRef]
28. Rangachari D, VanderLaan PA, Shea M, et al. Correlation between classic driver oncogene mutations in EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 and 22C3–PD-L1 ≥50% expression in lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(5):878-883. [CrossRef]
29. Carter J, Miller JA, Feller-Kopman D, et al. Molecular profiling of malignant pleural effusion in metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma: the effect of preanalytical factors. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 4(7):1169-1176. (PubMed:[CrossRef]) [CrossRef]
30. McLaughlin J, Han G, Schalper KA, et al. Quantitative assessment of the heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression in non-small-cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(1):46-54. [CrossRef]
31. Skov BG, Skov T. Paired comparison of PD-L1 expression on cytologic and histologic specimens From malignancies in the lung assessed with PD-L1 IHC 28-8pharmDx and PD-L1 IHC 22C3pharmDx. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;25(7):453-459. [CrossRef]
32. Rehman JA, Han G, Carvajal-Hausdorf DE, et al. Quantitative and pathologist-read comparison of the heterogeneity of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in non-small cell lung cancer. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(3):340-349. [CrossRef]
33. Rimm DL, Han G, Taube JM, et al. A prospective, multi-institutional, pathologistbased assessment of 4 immunohistochemistry assays for PD-L1 expression in non– small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(8):1051-1058. [CrossRef]
34. Russell-goldman E, Kravets S, Dahlberg SE, Sholl LM, Vivero M. Cytologic-histologic correlation of programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry in lung carcinomas. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(4):253-263. [CrossRef]
35. Pinto D, Schmitt F. Current applications of molecular testing on body cavity fluids. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020;48(9):840-851. [CrossRef]