Explore the vast range of titles available.

[...]in programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry of non-small cell lung cancer, heterogeneity is frequently present,3-7 implying that some of the tumor cells may be negative and other tumor cells, not far from each other, positive. Of note: (1) the focal initially discordant area probably contains several tumor cells with different epitope concentrations (individual analytes, usually within a factor 2-4 concentration range15), facilitating calibration of both assays; (2) the samples with concordant positivity, even in initially very deviant assays, prove the point that samples with high epitope concentration are not suitable for calibration or for daily monitoring of immunohistochemistry; (3) needless to say, participation in external quality assessment schemes after internal validation of the predictive assay is obligatory16; and (4) the number of samples to stain is fewer than published in the above-mentioned CAP guideline1 because critical samples have in one case sufficient relevant cells as individual analytes, providing the rationale for the laboratory medical director to test fewer than 40 cases for indirect clinical validation in predictive testing. Programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry testing: a review of analytical assays and clinical implementation in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Low-dose CT screening is recommended for individuals at high risk of developing lung cancer. However, CT screening does not detect all lung cancers: some might be missed at screening, and others can develop in the interval between screens. The NELSON trial is a randomised trial to assess the effect of screening with increasing screening intervals on lung cancer mortality. In this prespecified analysis, we aimed to assess screening test performance, and the epidemiological, radiological, and clinical characteristics of interval cancers in NELSON trial participants assigned to the screening group. Eligible participants in the NELSON trial were those aged 50–75 years, who had smoked 15 or more cigarettes per day for more than 25 years or ten or more cigarettes for more than 30 years, and were still smoking or had quit less than 10 years ago. We included all participants assigned to the screening group who had attended at least one round of screening. Screening test results were based on volumetry using a two-step approach. Initially, screening test results were classified as negative, indeterminate, or positive based on nodule presence and volume. Subsequently, participants with an initial indeterminate result underwent follow-up screening to classify their final screening test result as negative or positive, based on nodule volume doubling time. We obtained information about all lung cancer diagnoses made during the first three rounds of screening, plus an additional 2 years of follow-up from the national cancer registry. We determined epidemiological, radiological, participant, and tumour characteristics by reassessing medical files, screening CTs, and clinical CTs. The NELSON trial is registered at www.trialregister.nl, number ISRCTN63545820. 15 822 participants were enrolled in the NELSON trial, of whom 7915 were assigned to low-dose CT screening with increasing interval between screens, and 7907 to no screening. We included 7155 participants in our study, with median follow-up of 8·16 years (IQR 7·56–8·56). 187 (3%) of 7155 screened participants were diagnosed with 196 screen-detected lung cancers, and another 34 (<1%; 19 [56%] in the first year after screening, and 15 [44%] in the second year after screening) were diagnosed with 35 interval cancers. For the three screening rounds combined, with a 2-year follow-up, sensitivity was 84·6% (95% CI 79·6–89·2), specificity was 98·6% (95% CI 98·5–98·8), positive predictive value was 40·4% (95% CI 35·9–44·7), and negative predictive value was 99·8% (95% CI 99·8–99·9). Retrospective assessment of the last screening CT and clinical CT in 34 patients with interval cancer showed that interval cancers were not visible in 12 (35%) cases. In the remaining cases, cancers were visible when retrospectively assessed, but were not diagnosed because of radiological detection and interpretation errors (17 [50%]), misclassification by the protocol (two [6%]), participant non-compliance (two [6%]), and non-adherence to protocol (one [3%]). Compared with screen-detected cancers, interval cancers were diagnosed at more advanced stages (29 [83%] of 35 interval cancers vs 44 [22%] of 196 screen-detected cancers diagnosed in stage III or IV; p<0·0001), were more often small-cell carcinomas (seven [20%] vs eight [4%]; p=0·003) and less often adenocarcinomas (nine [26%] vs 102 [52%]; p=0·005). Lung cancer screening in the NELSON trial yielded high specificity and sensitivity, with only a small number of interval cancers. The results of this study could be used to improve screening algorithms, and reduce the number of missed cancers. Zorgonderzoek Nederland Medische Wetenschappen and Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors are most beneficial in patients with high tumour PD-L1 expression. However, the use of PD-L1 expression is not straightforward. We investigated PD-L1 expression and immune cell (IC) infiltrates in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with nivolumab. Methods Tumour tissue specimens of 139 NSCLC patients were scored for tumour/stromal PD-L1 and various IC expression markers, and associated with durable clinical benefit (DCB) and overall survival (OS). Results Median OS was higher for patients with high stromal infiltration of CD8 + ICs (9.0 months) compared with patients with low and intermediate infiltration (both 5.0 months, p  = 0.035) and for patients with high infiltration of stromal CD4 + ICs (9.0 months) compared with patients with low and intermediate infiltration (both 5.0 months, p  = 0.010) and this was confirmed in the validation cohort. Post hoc analyses showed that biopsies taken after the last line of chemotherapy (ACT) were predictive for DCB and OS, whereas samples obtained before the last line of chemotherapy (BCT) were not. Conclusions Stromal infiltration of ICs can predict response to PD-1-directed immunotherapy in NSCLC patients. Interestingly, we found differences in the predictive value of IC markers between the ACT and BCT biopsies, suggesting that chemotherapy might influence the immune microenvironment.

To establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers that are required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. Three cochairs without conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the 3 sponsoring professional societies: College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Writing and advisory panels were constituted from additional experts from these societies. Three unbiased literature searches of electronic databases were performed to capture articles published from January 2004 through February 2012, yielding 1533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for their relevance to the recommendations. Evidence was formally graded for each recommendation. Initial recommendations were formulated by the cochairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least 2 panelists. Drafts were circulated to the writing panel (version 1), advisory panel (version 2), and the public (version 3) before submission (version 4). The 37 guideline items address 14 subjects, including 15 recommendations (evidence grade A/B). The major recommendations are to use testing for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions to guide patient selection for therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, respectively, in all patients with advanced-stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, smoking history, or other clinical risk factors, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards. Already, new treatments targeting genetic alterations in other, less common driver oncogenes are being evaluated in lung cancer, and testing for these may be addressed in future versions of these guidelines.

The NELSON (Nederlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek) trial is, with 15,822 participants, the largest European lung cancer computer tomography screening trial. A volumetry-based screening strategy, stringent criteria for a positive screening, and an increasing length of screening interval are particular features of the NELSON trial. To determine the effect of stringent referral criteria and increasing screening interval on the characteristics of screen-detected lung cancers, and to compare this across screening rounds, between sexes, and with other screening trials. All NELSON participants with screen-detected lung cancer in the first three rounds were included. Lung cancer stage at diagnosis, histological subtype, and tumor localization were compared between the screening rounds, the sexes, and with other screening trials. In the first three screening rounds, 200 participants were diagnosed with 209 lung cancers. Of these lung cancers, 70.8% were diagnosed at stage I and 8.1% at stage IIIB-IV, and 51.2% were adenocarcinomas. There was no significant difference in cancer stage, histology, or tumor localization across the screening rounds. Women were diagnosed at a significantly more favorable cancer stage than men. Compared with other trials, the screen-detected lung cancers of the NELSON trial were relatively more often diagnosed at stage I and less often at stage IIIB-IV. Despite stringent criteria for a positive screening, an increasing length of screening interval, and few female participants, the screening strategy of the NELSON trial resulted in a favorable cancer stage distribution at diagnosis, which is essential for the effectiveness of our screening strategy. Clinical trial registered with www.trialregister.nl (ISRCTN63545820).

Molecular testing is becoming an important part of the diagnosis of any patient with cancer. The challenge to laboratories is to meet this need, using reliable methods and processes to ensure that patients receive a timely and accurate report on which their treatment will be based. The aim of this paper is to provide minimum requirements for the management of molecular pathology laboratories. This general guidance should be augmented by the specific guidance available for different tumour types and tests. Preanalytical considerations are important, and careful consideration of the way in which specimens are obtained and reach the laboratory is necessary. Sample receipt and handling follow standard operating procedures, but some alterations may be necessary if molecular testing is to be performed, for instance to control tissue fixation. DNA and RNA extraction can be standardised and should be checked for quality and quantity of output on a regular basis. The choice of analytical method(s) depends on clinical requirements, desired turnaround time, and expertise available. Internal quality control, regular internal audit of the whole testing process, laboratory accreditation, and continual participation in external quality assessment schemes are prerequisites for delivery of a reliable service. A molecular pathology report should accurately convey the information the clinician needs to treat the patient with sufficient information to allow for correct interpretation of the result. Molecular pathology is developing rapidly, and further detailed evidence-based recommendations are required for many of the topics covered here.

- Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has emerged as a very useful tool in the field of diagnostic respiratory cytology. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of EBUS-TBNA not only has the potential to improve diagnostic yield of the procedure but also to triage samples for predictive molecular testing to guide personalized treatments for lung cancer. - To provide an overview of the current status of the literature regarding ROSE of EBUS-TBNA in the diagnosis of lung cancer. - An electronic literature search in PubMed and Google databases was performed using the following key words: cytology, lung cancer, on-site evaluation, rapid on-site evaluation, and ROSE EBUS-TBNA. Only articles published in English were included in this review. - Rapid on-site evaluation can ensure that the targeted lesion is being sampled and can enable appropriate specimen triage. If available, it should be used with EBUS-TBNA in the diagnosis of lung cancer because it can minimize repeat procedures for additional desired testing (ie, molecular studies). Some studies have shown that ROSE does not adversely affect the number of aspirations, total procedure time of EBUS-TBNA, or the rate of postprocedure complications; it is also helpful in providing a preliminary diagnosis that can reduce the number of additional invasive procedures, such as mediastinoscopy. As EBUS technology continues to evolve, our knowledge of the role of ROSE in EBUS-TBNA for the diagnosis of lung cancer will also continue to grow and evolve.

The new International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society lung adenocarcinoma classification provides, for the first time, standardized terminology for lung cancer diagnosis in small biopsies and cytology; this was not primarily addressed by previous World Health Organization classifications. Until recently there have been no therapeutic implications to further classification of NSCLC, so little attention has been given to the distinction of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in small tissue samples. This situation has changed dramatically in recent years with the discovery of several therapeutic options that are available only to patients with adenocarcinoma or NSCLC, not otherwise specified, rather than squamous cell carcinoma. This includes recommendation for use of special stains as an aid to diagnosis, particularly in the setting of poorly differentiated tumors that do not show clear differentiation by routine light microscopy. A limited diagnostic workup is recommended to preserve as much tissue for molecular testing as possible. Most tumors can be classified using a single adenocarcinoma marker (eg, thyroid transcription factor 1 or mucin) and a single squamous marker (eg, p40 or p63). Carcinomas lacking clear differentiation by morphology and special stains are classified as NSCLC, not otherwise specified. Not otherwise specified carcinomas that stain with adenocarcinoma markers are classified as NSCLC, favor adenocarcinoma, and tumors that stain only with squamous markers are classified as NSCLC, favor squamous cell carcinoma. The need for every institution to develop a multidisciplinary tissue management strategy to obtain these small specimens and process them, not only for diagnosis but also for molecular testing and evaluation of markers of resistance to therapy, is emphasized.

Biomarker testing is crucial for treatment selection in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the quantity of available tissue often presents a key constraint for patients with advanced disease, where minimally invasive tissue biopsy typically returns small samples. In Part 1 of this two-part series, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to small sample processing for patients with NSCLC. Generally, tissue biopsy techniques that deliver the greatest quantity and quality of tissue with the least risk to the patient should be selected. Rapid on-site evaluation can help to ensure sufficient sample quality and quantity. Sample processing should be managed according to biomarker testing requirements, because tissue fixation methodology influences downstream nucleic acid, protein and morphological analyses. Accordingly, 10% neutral buffered formalin is recommended as an appropriate fixative, and the duration of fixation is recommended not to exceed 24–48 h. Tissue sparing techniques, including the ‘one biopsy per block’ approach and small sample cutting protocols, can help preserve tissue. Cytological material (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded [FFPE] cytology blocks and non-FFPE samples such as smears and touch preparations) can be an excellent source of nucleic acid, providing either primary or supplementary patient material to complete morphological and molecular diagnoses. Considerations on biomarker testing, reporting and quality assessment are discussed in Part 2.

In lung cancer, clinically relevant prognostic information is provided by staging. Staging forms the basis for the treatment options and this is briefly summarized in the introduction. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase are biomarkers used for prediction of chemotherapy and prediction of targeted treatment. Other driver biomarkers in lung cancer (point mutations and rearrangements in specific genes including Her2 , BRAF , NUT , MET , ROS1 , DDR2 , FGFR1 , KRAS , and PTEN ) might potentially provide additional information for clinical decision making. Owing to the low prevalence of mutations in predictive markers, patient numbers in studies are usually small, with the exception of EGFR. These mutations increase our understanding of the biology of lung cancer. Mutation analysis as a basis for treatment choice can have an impressive clinical impact with dramatic responses. However, as yet the impact of these approaches to overall survival is less striking.