Histopronostic factors in superficial colorectal adenocarcinomas treated by endoscopy: reproducibility and impact of immunohistochemistry and digital pathology.

Endoscopic dissection is the first-choice treatment for superficial pT1 colorectal adenocarcinoma (sCRC). Complementary surgery decision is influenced by histopronostic factors. Prognostic significance and reproducibility of each factor are not well established. The role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) and digital pathology in this context is unknown. Our aims were (1) to evaluate each histopronostic factor reproducibility comparing HES and IHC ± digital pathology and (2) to evaluate how the different techniques would affect indications for additional surgery. We performed a single-centre retrospective study of 98 patients treated between 2010 and 2019 in Hospices Civils de Lyon, France. We analyzed physical or digital slides of HES and keratin/desmin immunostaining of 98 sCRC dissection specimens. Three pathologists evaluate the histopronostic factors including submucosal invasion depth (SMI) measured using different recommended methods. Assessment of SMI with Ueno or JSCCR methods showed good to excellent interobserver reproducibility (IOR) (ICCs of 0.858 to 0.925) using HES staining and IHC. Assessment of budding on HES sections was poorly reproducible compared to IHC which exhibit moderate IOR (κ = 0.714). IHC increased high-grade budding detection. For lymphovascular invasion and poor differentiation, the IOR was poor (κ = 0.141, 0.196 and 0.313 respectively). IHC gave a better reproducibility for further treatment indication according to JSCCR criteria (κ = 0.763) or forthcoming European guidelines (κ = 0.659). Digital pathology was equivalent to the microscope for all analyses. Histopronostic factor reproducibility in sCRC is moderate. Immunohistochemistry may facilitate the evaluation of certain criteria and improve the reproducibility of treatment decisions.

Bone decalcification to assess programmed cell death ligand 1 expression in bone metastases of non-small cell lung cancers.

As for molecular alterations of lung adenocarcinoma, it is critical that pathologists are able to give PD-L1 expression status before first-line of treatment. The present study compared PD-L1 expression (clone 22-C3) in decalcified using EDTA or formic acid and non-decalcified lung cancer metastases bone samples. Amongst the 84 bone samples analysed for PD-L1 expression, and independently of decalcification, TPS ≥ 1% was 25.0% and ≥ 50% was 11.4%. There was no significant difference between decalcified samples (n = 45) and non-decalcified samples (n = 39) for both TPS ≥ 1% (p = 0.32) and TPS ≥ 50% (p = 1). To conclude, we confirm decalcified bone metastasis specimens may be used for PD-L1 IHC in routine practice. These results also highlight potentially interesting specificities of the bone microenvironment that should be further studied.

Rapid detection of EGFR mutations in decalcified lung cancer bone metastasis.

Detection of molecular alterations in lung cancer bone metastasis (LCBM) is particularly difficult when decalcification procedure is needed. The Idylla™ real-time (RT)-PCR is compared to the routine method used in our laboratory, which combines next generation and Sanger sequencing, for the detection of EGFR mutations in LCBM. LCBM subjected to EDTA or formic acid decalcification were analysed for EGFR mutational status using two methods: first, the Ion Torrent Ampliseq next generation sequencing (NGS) assay +/- Sanger sequencing was used prospectively; then, the fully-automated, RT-PCR based molecular testing system Idylla™ EGFR Mutation Test was applied retrospectively. Out of the 34 LCBM assayed, 14 (41.2%) were unsuitable for NGS analysis and five remained unsuitable after additional Sanger EGFR sequencing (5/34, 14.7%). Using Idylla™, valid results were observed for 33/34 samples (97.1%). The concordance between the NGS +/- Sanger sequencing method and the RT-PCR method was 89.7% (26/29), one false positive EGFR S768I mutation and two false negative results were observed using Idylla™; one of these false negative cases was diagnosed by Sanger sequencing with a rare exon 19 EGFR mutation not covered by the Idylla™ EGFR Mutation Test design. Detection of EGFR mutations in decalcified LCBM is challenging using NGS, more than half of samples showing invalid results. Alternative methods should thus be preferred to spare clinical samples and decrease delay. The Idylla™ EGFR Mutation Test shows a good performance on decalcified bone samples and could be used as a first step. In case of negative results, a sequencing approach is mandatory to check the presence of rare EGFR mutations sensitive to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.