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

Altres ajuts: Funding for this study was provided bythe iLUNG Program (B2017/BMD-3884) from the Comunidad de Madrid.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

the European trial on Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in Stable Coronary Artery Disease Investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA trial).

Background Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces the rate of cardiovascular events among patients with left-ventricular dysfunction and those at high risk of such events. We assessed whether the ACE inhibitor perindopril reduced cardiovascular risk in a low-risk population with stable coronary heart disease and no apparent heart failure. Methods We recruited patients from October, 1997, to June, 2000. 13 655 patients were registered with previous myocardial infarction (64%), angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease (61%), coronary revascularisation (55%), or a positive stress test only (5%). After a run-in period of 4 weeks, in which all patients received perindopril, 12 218 patients were randomly assigned perindopril 8 mg once daily (n=6110), or matching placebo (n=6108). The mean follow-up was 4·2 years, and the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings Mean age of patients was 60 years (SD 9), 85% were male, 92% were taking platelet inhibitors, 62% blockers, and 58% lipid-lowering therapy. 603 (10%) placebo and 488 (8%) perindopril patients experienced the primary endpoint, which yields a 20% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9–29, p=0·0003) with perindopril. These benefits were consistent in all predefined subgroups and secondary endpoints. Perindopril was well tolerated. Interpretation Among patients with stable coronary heart disease without apparent heart failure, perindopril can significantly improve outcome. About 50 patients need to be treated for a period of 4 years to prevent one major cardiovascular event. Treatment with perindopril, on top of other preventive medications, should be considered in all patients with coronary heart disease

The European Trial On Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Background Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces the rate of cardiovascular events among patients with left-ventricular dysfunction and those at high risk of such events. We assessed whether the ACE inhibitor perindopril reduced cardiovascular risk in a low-risk population with stable coronary heart disease and no apparent heart failure. Methods We recruited patients from October, 1997, to June, 2000. 13 655 patients were registered with previous myocardial infarction (64%), angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease (61%), coronary revascularisation (55%), or a positive stress test only (5%). After a run-in period of 4 weeks, in which all patients received perindopril, 12 218 patients were randomly assigned perindopril 8 mg once daily (n=6110), or matching placebo (n=6108). The mean follow-up was 4·2 years, and the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings Mean age of patients was 60 years (SD 9), 85% were male, 92% were taking platelet inhibitors, 62% β blockers, and 58% lipid-lowering therapy. 603 (10%) placebo and 488 (8%) perindopril patients experienced the primary endpoint, which yields a 20% relative risk reduction (95% Cl 9–29, p=0·0003) with perindopril. These benefits were consistent in all predefined subgroups and secondary endpoints. Perindopril was well tolerated. Interpretation Among patients with stable coronary heart disease without apparent heart failure, perindopril can significantly improve outcome. About 50 patients need to be treated for a period of 4 years to prevent one major cardiovascular event. Treatment with perindopril, on top of other preventive medications, should be considered in all patients with coronary heart disease

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field