Assessment of a New ROS1 Immunohistochemistry Clone (SP384) for the Identification of ROS1 Rearrangements in Patients with Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: the ROSING Study

Introduction: The ROS1 gene rearrangement has become an important biomarker in NSCLC. The College of American Pathologists/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/Association for Molecular Pathology testing guidelines support the use of ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a screening test, followed by confirmation with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or a molecular test in all positive results. We have evaluated a novel anti-ROS1 IHC antibody (SP384) in a large multicenter series to obtain real-world data. Methods: A total of 43 ROS1 FISH-positive and 193 ROS1 FISH-negative NSCLC samples were studied. All specimens were screened by using two antibodies (clone D4D6 from Cell Signaling Technology and clone SP384 from Ventana Medical Systems), and the different interpretation criteria were compared with break-apart FISH (Vysis). FISH-positive samples were also analyzed with next-generation sequencing (Oncomine Dx Target Test Panel, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Results: An H-score of 150 or higher or the presence of at least 70% of tumor cells with an intensity of staining of 2+ or higher by the SP384 clone was the optimal cutoff value (both with 93% sensitivity and 100% specificity). The D4D6 clone showed similar results, with an H-score of at least 100 (91% sensitivity and 100% specificity). ROS1 expression in normal lung was more frequent with use of the SP384 clone (p < 0.0001). The ezrin gene (EZR)-ROS1 variant was associated with membranous staining and an isolated green signal FISH pattern (p = 0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively). Conclusions: The new SP384 ROS1 IHC clone showed excellent sensitivity without compromising specificity, so it is another excellent analytical option for the proposed testing algorithm

Assessment of a New ROS1 Immunohistochemistry Clone (SP384) for the Identification of ROS1 Rearrangements in Patients with Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: the ROSING Study

Introduction: The ROS1 gene rearrangement has become an important biomarker in NSCLC. The College of American Pathologists/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/Association for Molecular Pathology testing guidelines support the use of ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a screening test, followed by confirmation with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or a molecular test in all positive results. We have evaluated a novel anti-ROS1 IHC antibody (SP384) in a large multicenter series to obtain real-world data. Methods: A total of 43 ROS1 FISH-positive and 193 ROS1 FISH-negative NSCLC samples were studied. All specimens were screened by using two antibodies (clone D4D6 from Cell Signaling Technology and clone SP384 from Ventana Medical Systems), and the different interpretation criteria were compared with break-apart FISH (Vysis). FISH-positive samples were also analyzed with next-generation sequencing (Oncomine Dx Target Test Panel, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Results: An H-score of 150 or higher or the presence of at least 70% of tumor cells with an intensity of staining of 2+ or higher by the SP384 clone was the optimal cutoff value (both with 93% sensitivity and 100% specificity). The D4D6 clone showed similar results, with an H-score of at least 100 (91% sensitivity and 100% specificity). ROS1 expression in normal lung was more frequent with use of the SP384 clone (p < 0.0001). The ezrin gene (EZR)-ROS1 variant was associated with membranous staining and an isolated green signal FISH pattern (p = 0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively). Conclusions: The new SP384 ROS1 IHC clone showed excellent sensitivity without compromising specificity, so it is another excellent analytical option for the proposed testing algorithm

Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge

<div><p>Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.</p></div

Categories, subcategories and funding sources classification used to categorise costs.

<p>Categories, subcategories and funding sources classification used to categorise costs.</p

Development status of the four knowledge products included in this study.

<p>A brief description of each knowledge product is available in [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0160640#pone.0160640.ref007" target="_blank">7</a>].</p

Sources of funding (midpoints of estimates) invested until 2013 for each knowledge product.

<p>Sources of funding (midpoints of estimates) invested until 2013 for each knowledge product.</p

Overall funds (midpoints) and volunteer days invested in the four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013, and annual cost in 2013.

<p>The mid-point is the equidistant point between the maximum and minimum values. Full details are available in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0160640#pone.0160640.s004" target="_blank">S4 Table</a>.</p