Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024
ROS1 fusions in resected stage I-III adenocarcinoma: Results from the European Thoracic Oncology Platform Lungscape project.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Speel Ernst-Jan M, Dafni Urania, Thunnissen Erik, Hendrik Rüschoff Jan, O'Brien Cathal, Kowalski Jacek, Kerr Keith M, Bubendorf Lukas, Sansano Irene, Joseph Leena, Kriegsmann Mark, Navarro Atilio, Monkhorst Kim, Bille Madsen Line, Hernandez Losa Javier, Biernat Wojciech, Stenzinger Albrecht, Rüland Andrea, Hillen Lisa M, Marti Nesa, Molina-Vila Miguel A, Dellaporta Tereza, Kammler Roswitha, Peters Solange, Stahel Rolf A, Finn Stephen P, Radonic Teodora, Lungscape Consortium (see Appendix)
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: ROS1 fusion is a relatively low prevalence (0.6-2.0%) but targetable driver in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). Robust and low-cost tests, such as immunohistochemistry (IHC), are desirable to screen for patients potentially harboring this fusion. The aim was to investigate the prevalence of ROS1 fusions in a clinically annotated European stage I-III LUAD cohort using IHC screening with the in vitro diagnostics (IVD)-marked clone SP384, followed by confirmatory molecular analysis in pre-defined subsets.
METHODS: Resected LUADs constructed in tissue microarrays, were immunostained for ROS1 expression using SP384 clone in a ready-to-use kit and Ventana immunostainers. After external quality control, analysis was performed by trained pathologists. Staining intensity of at least 2+ (any percentage of tumor cells) was considered IHC positive (ROS1 IHC + ). Subsequently, ROS1 IHC + cases were 1:1:1 matched with IHC0 and IHC1 + cases and subjected to orthogonal ROS1 FISH and RNA-based testing.
RESULTS: The prevalence of positive ROS1 expression (ROS1 IHC + ), defined as IHC 2+/3+, was 4 % (35 of 866 LUADs). Twenty-eight ROS1 IHC + cases were analyzed by FISH/RNA-based testing, with only two harboring a confirmed ROS1 gene fusion, corresponding to a lower limit for the prevalence of ROS1 gene fusion of 0.23 %. They represent a 7 % probability of identifying a fusion among ROS1 IHC + cases. Both confirmed cases were among the only four with sufficient material and H-score ≥ 200, leading to a 50 % probability of identifying a ROS1 gene fusion in cases with an H-score considered strongly positive. All matched ROS1 IHC- (IHC0 and IHC1 + ) cases were also found negative by FISH/RNA-based testing, leading to a 100 % probability of lack of ROS1 fusion for ROS1 IHC- cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of ROS1 fusion in an LUAD stage I-III European cohort was relatively low. ROS1 IHC using SP384 clone is useful for exclusion of ROS1 gene fusion negative cases.
METHODS: Resected LUADs constructed in tissue microarrays, were immunostained for ROS1 expression using SP384 clone in a ready-to-use kit and Ventana immunostainers. After external quality control, analysis was performed by trained pathologists. Staining intensity of at least 2+ (any percentage of tumor cells) was considered IHC positive (ROS1 IHC + ). Subsequently, ROS1 IHC + cases were 1:1:1 matched with IHC0 and IHC1 + cases and subjected to orthogonal ROS1 FISH and RNA-based testing.
RESULTS: The prevalence of positive ROS1 expression (ROS1 IHC + ), defined as IHC 2+/3+, was 4 % (35 of 866 LUADs). Twenty-eight ROS1 IHC + cases were analyzed by FISH/RNA-based testing, with only two harboring a confirmed ROS1 gene fusion, corresponding to a lower limit for the prevalence of ROS1 gene fusion of 0.23 %. They represent a 7 % probability of identifying a fusion among ROS1 IHC + cases. Both confirmed cases were among the only four with sufficient material and H-score ≥ 200, leading to a 50 % probability of identifying a ROS1 gene fusion in cases with an H-score considered strongly positive. All matched ROS1 IHC- (IHC0 and IHC1 + ) cases were also found negative by FISH/RNA-based testing, leading to a 100 % probability of lack of ROS1 fusion for ROS1 IHC- cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of ROS1 fusion in an LUAD stage I-III European cohort was relatively low. ROS1 IHC using SP384 clone is useful for exclusion of ROS1 gene fusion negative cases.