New Methods for ALK Status Diagnosis in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Improved ALK Immunohistochemical Assay and a New, Brightfield, Dual ALK IHC–In Situ Hybridization Assay

Introduction:The demonstration of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positivity in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been hindered by the technical complexity and interpretative challenges of fluorescence in situ hybridization methods for detection of ALK gene rearrangement and by the inadequate sensitivity of existing immunohistochemistry (IHC) methods for ALK protein detection. In this study, we sought to increase the sensitivity of ALK IHC detection and to develop a brightfield assay for concurrent detection of ALK protein expression and ALK gene rearrangement.Methods:We developed a horseradish peroxidase–based IHC detection system using the novel, nonendogenous hapten 3-hydroxy-2-quinoxaline (HQ) and tyramide. We also developed a dual gene protein ALK assay combining a brightfield break-apart in situ hybridization ALK assay with another sensitive IHC method using the novel, nonendogenous hapten 5-nitro-3-pyrazole. We examined the sensitivity and accuracy of these methods using surgically resected NSCLC cases examined with ALK fluorescence in situ hybridization.Results:The new HQ-tyramide IHC detection system offered readily interpretable staining with substantially greater sensitivity than conventional ALK IHC, and produced heterogeneous and homogeneous patterns of ALK protein staining among ALK-positive NSCLC surgical cases. The new 5-nitro-3-pyrazole–based IHC detection system was similar in ALK detection sensitivity to the HQ-tyramide IHC system and was compatible with the brightfield in situ hybridization assay.Conclusion:The new HQ-tyramide IHC reagent system allows more sensitive assessment of ALK protein status in NSCLC cases. The new ALK gene-protein assay allows the concurrent visualization of ALK gene and ALK protein status in single cells, allowing more accurate ALK status determination even in heterogeneous specimens

Immunohistochemical expression of HER2 in breast cancer:socioeconomic impact of inaccurate tests

BACKGROUND: Treatment for patients with breast cancer (BC) is guided by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. The patient’s HER2 status is assessed using US Food and Drug Administration-approved in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunohistochemical (IHC) tests and laboratory-developed IVD tests. We analysed HER2 testing accuracy using data from the Nordic Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (NordiQC) HER2 IHC programme; results were used in an economic BC treatment model. METHODS: Data were obtained from NordiQC HER2 BC surveys performed from 2008 to 2012. False-negative (FN) and false-positive (FP) rates for approved and laboratory-developed IVDs were used to estimate direct costs, loss of survival, productivity benefit and quality-adjusted life-years. In the absence of consistent and accessible clinical and economic data from countries participating in the NordiQC programme, United States productivity data, healthcare costs and patient numbers were used as a surrogate in order to estimate the potential impact of selecting an approved or laboratory-developed IVDs. RESULTS: In total, 1703 tests were performed. Pooled FN rates were 11 % for approved IVDs and 25 % for laboratory-developed IVDs; FP rates were 0 % and 5 %, respectively. Using these FP and FN rates in the economic model and applying them to the United States BC population, approved IVD tests would result in better clinical outcomes, i.e., better survival and fewer disease recurrences/progressions, and lower costs, i.e., total direct costs and lost productivity, versus laboratory-developed IVD tests. Every $1 saved by laboratories by using cheaper reagents could potentially result in approximately$6 additional costs to the healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that incorrect HER2 test results have far-reaching clinical and economic consequences

Computer-aided scoring of erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (HER2) gene amplification status in breast cancer

Background: Identification of HER2 protein overexpression and/or amplification of the HER2 gene are required to qualify breast cancer patients for HER2 targeted therapies. In situ hybridization (ISH) assays that identify HER2 gene amplification function as a stand-alone test for determination of HER2 status and rely on the manual quantification of the number of HER2 genes and copies of chromosome 17 to determine HER2 amplification. Methods: To assist pathologists, we have developed the uPath HER2 Dual ISH Image Analysis for Breast (uPath HER2 DISH IA) algorithm, as an adjunctive aid in the determination of HER2 gene status in breast cancer specimens. The objective of this study was to compare uPath HER2 DISH image analysis vs manual read scoring of VENTANA HER2 DISH-stained breast carcinoma specimens with ground truth (GT) gene status as the reference. Three reader pathologists reviewed 220, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) breast cancer cases by both manual and uPath HER2 DISH IA methods. Scoring results from manual read (MR) and computer-assisted scores (image analysis, IA) were compared against the GT gene status generated by consensus of a panel of pathologists. The differences in agreement rates of HER2 gene status between manual, computer-assisted, and GT gene status were determined. Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) rates for image analysis (IA) vs GT were 97.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 95.0, 99.3) and 94.3% (95% CI: 90.8, 97.3) respectively. Comparison of agreement rates showed that the lower bounds of the 95% CIs for the difference of PPA and NPA for IA vs MR were –0.9% and –6.2%, respectively. Further, inter- and intra-reader agreement rates in the IA method were observed with point estimates of at least 96.7%. Conclusions: Overall, our data show that the uPath HER2 DISH IA is non-inferior to manual scoring and supports its use as an aid for pathologists in routine diagnosis of breast cancer

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable