Peritoneal carcinomatosis in non-small-cell lung cancer: Retrospective multicentric analysis and literature review

Aim: We investigated outcomes in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and peritoneal involvement. Patients & methods: NSCLC patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) were included. We evaluated mOS1 (overall survival [OS] from NSCLC diagnosis) and mOS2 (OS from diagnosis of PC). Results: In total, 60 NSCLC patients were diagnosed with PC, 12 (20%) patients had a diagnosis of NSCLC and synchronous PC with a median OS of 9 months. Smokers had a shorter mOS1 and mOS2 compared with never-smokers; EGFR-mutated patients on tyrosine kinase inhibitors had longer mOS1 and mOS2 than EGFR wild-type patients. Conclusion: Metachronous PC is correlated to a short survival, irrespective of treatment line. Never-smokers and EGFR-mutated patients had improved mOS1 and mOS2 when compared with smokers and EGFR wild-type population

Does immunohistochemistry represent a robust alternative technique in determining drugable predictive gene alterations in non-small cell lung cancer?

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a widely-tested, low-cost and rapid ancillary technique available in all laboratories of pathology. This method is generally used for diagnostic purposes, but several studies have investigated the sensitivity and specificity of different immunohistochemical antibodies as a surrogate test in the determination of predictive biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), particularly for Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) gene mutations, Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) gene and ROS1 rearrangements. In this review, a critical examination of the works comparing the consistency of IHC expression and conventional molecular techniques to identify genetic alterations with predictive value in NSCLC is discussed. Summarizing, data on sensitivity and specificity of antibodies against ALK and ROS1 are very consistent and time has come to trust in IHC at least as a cost-effective screening tool to identify patients with rearranged tumors in clinical practice. On the other hand, mutant-specific antibodies against EGFR demonstrate a good specificity but a low-to-fair sensitivity, raising some cautions on their employment as robust predictive biomarkers. A brief comment on preliminary experiences with antibodies against BRAF, RET, HER2 and c-MET is also included