The impact of different fixatives on immunostaining of lung adenocarcinomas in pleural effusion cell blocks.

BACKGROUND: Cell blocks (CBs) are widely used for biomarker analyses such as immunostaining. Although immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues is standardized, there are multiple preparation methods and fixatives for cytology. Our objective was to investigate the effect of different common fixatives on the immunoreactivity of pleural effusion CBs with metastatic lung adenocarcinomas. METHODS: This prospective study included 24 malignant pleural effusions from different patients with lung adenocarcinoma. From each case, four identical CBs were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin, PreservCyt, CytoLyt, and CytoRich Red (only 17 of the cases), respectively. Samples containing <100 malignant cells were excluded. All CBs were stained with thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1; clones 8G7G3/1 and SPT24), napsin A, claudin 4, CEA, CK7, and epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM; clones BS14, Ber-Ep4, and MOC-31). The fraction and intensity of stained cells were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the investigated markers, a significant difference in staining proportion was seen for TTF-1 clone 8G7G3/1 and EpCAM clone MOC-31, especially with cases being negative in CytoLyt (33.3% and 83.3% positive, respectively) and PreservCyt (62.5% and 83.3%) whereas being positive in CytoRich Red (76.5% and 94.1%) and formalin (both 95.8%). A significantly weaker intensity of staining was seen for all alcohol-based fixatives compared to formalin for TTF-1 clone 8G7G3/1, napsin A, and EpCAM clone MOC-31, whereas EpCAM clone Ber-Ep4 was significantly weaker only in PreservCyt compared with formalin. CONCLUSIONS: Immunocytochemical expression and concordance with formalin-fixed CBs differ depending on the used fixative as well as the antibody and clone, warranting investigation of the reliability of each biomarker for non-formalin-fixed cytology.

Comparison of immunohistochemical mesothelial biomarkers in paired biopsies and effusion cytology cell blocks from pleural mesothelioma.

OBJECTIVE: Traditionally, the diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma is based on histological material. Minimally invasive effusion cytology specimens are an alternative that, like biopsies, require ancillary analyses. Validation of immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses on cytology, including the surrogate markers for molecular alterations BAP1 and MTAP, is of interest. METHODS: IHC for eight different markers was performed on 59 paired formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded pleural biopsies and pleural effusion cell blocks with mesothelioma. Immunoreactivity in ≥10% of tumour cells was considered positive/preserved. The concordance between histological and cytological materials was assessed. RESULTS: The overall percentage of agreement between the histological epithelioid component in 58 biopsies and paired cell blocks was 93% for calretinin, 98% for CK5, 97% for podoplanin, 90% for WT1, 86% for EMA, 100% for desmin, 91% for BAP1, and 72% for MTAP. For 11 cases with biphasic or sarcomatoid histology, the concordance between cytology and the histological sarcomatoid component was low for calretinin, CK5, and WT1 (all ≤45%). For the whole cohort, loss of both BAP1 and MTAP was seen in 40% while both markers were preserved in 11% of the biopsies for epithelioid histology. The corresponding numbers were 54% and 8%, respectively, for the paired cell blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, a high concordance for IHC staining was seen between paired biopsies and pleural effusion cell blocks from mesotheliomas, but the somewhat lower agreement for WT1, EMA, and especially MTAP calls for further investigation and local quality assurance. The lower concordance for the sarcomatoid subtype for some markers may indicate biological differences.

PD-L1 Expression in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Specimens: Association with Clinicopathological Factors and Molecular Alterations.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting programmed cell death-1 or its ligand (PD-L1) have improved outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). High tumor PD-L1 expression, detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) typically on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) histological specimens, is linked to better response. Following our previous investigation on PD-L1 in cytological samples, the aim of this study was to further explore the potential impacts of various clinicopathological and molecular factors on PD-L1 expression. Two retrospective NSCLC cohorts of 1131 and 651 specimens, respectively, were investigated for PD-L1 expression (<1%/1−49%/≥50%), sample type, sample site, histological type, and oncogenic driver status. In both cohorts, PD-L1 was positive (≥1%) in 55% of the cases. Adenocarcinomas exhibited lower PD-L1 expression than squamous cell carcinomas (p < 0.0001), while there was no difference between sample types, tumor locations, or between the two cohorts in multivariate analysis (all p ≥ 0.28). Mutational status correlated significantly with PD-L1 expression (p < 0.0001), with the highest expression for KRAS-mutated cases, the lowest for EGFR-mutated, and the KRAS/EGFR wild-type cases in between. There was no difference in PD-L1 levels between different prevalent KRAS mutations (all p ≥ 0.44), while mucinous KRAS-mutated adenocarcinomas exhibited much lower PD-L1 expression than non-mucinous (p < 0.0001). Our data indicate that cytological and histological specimens are comparable for PD-L1 evaluation. Given the impact of KRAS mutations and the mucinous growth pattern on PD-L1 expression, these factors should be further investigated in studies on ICI response.

Factors Influencing Concordance of PD-L1 Expression between Biopsies and Cytological Specimens in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PD-L1 expression assessed by immunohistochemical staining is used for the selection of immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Appropriate validation of PD-L1 expression in cytology specimens is important as cytology is often the only diagnostic material in NSCLC. In a previous study comprising two different cohorts of paired biopsies and cytological specimens, we found a fairly good cyto-histological correlation of PD-L1 expression in one, whereas only a moderate correlation was found in the other cohort. Therefore, that cohort with additional new cases was now further investigated for the impact of preanalytical factors on PD-L1 concordance in paired biopsies and cytological specimens. A total of 100 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded cell blocks from 19 pleural effusions (PE), 17 bronchial brushes (BB), and 64 bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and concurrent matched biopsies from 80 bronchial biopsies and 20 transthoracic core biopsies from NSCLC patients were stained using the PD-L1 28-8 assay. Using the cutoffs ≥1%, ≥5%, ≥10%, and ≥50% positive tumour cells, the overall agreement between histology and cytology was 77-85% (κ 0.51-0.70) depending on the applied cutoff value. The concordance was better for BALs (κ 0.53-0.81) and BBs (κ 0.55-0.85) than for PEs (κ -0.16-0.48), while no difference was seen for different types of biopsies or histological tumour type. A high number of tumour cells (>500) in biopsies was associated with better concordance at the ≥50% cutoff. In conclusion, the study results suggest that PEs may be less suitable for evaluation of PD-L1 due to limited cyto-histological concordance, while a high amount of tumour cells in biopsies may be favourable when regarding cyto-histological PD-L1 concordance.

PD-L1 Testing in Cytological Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Specimens: A Comparison with Biopsies and Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is used for treatment prediction in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While cytology may be the only available material in the routine clinical setting, testing in clinical trials has mainly been based on biopsies. METHODS: We included 2 retrospective cohorts of paired, concurrently sampled, cytological specimens and biopsies. Also, the literature on PD-L1 in paired cytological/histological samples was reviewed. Focus was on the cutoff levels ≥1 and ≥50% positive tumor cells. RESULTS: Using a 3-tier scale, PD-L1 was concordant in 40/47 (85%) and 66/97 (68%) of the paired NSCLC cases in the 2 cohorts, with kappa 0.77 and 0.49, respectively. In the former cohort, all discordant cases had lower score in cytology. In both cohorts, concordance was lower in samples from different sites (e.g., biopsy from primary tumor and cytology from pleural effusion). Based on 25 published studies including about 1,700 paired cytology/histology cases, the median (range) concordance was 81-85% (62-100%) at cutoff 1% for a positive PD-L1 staining and 89% (67-100%) at cutoff 50%. CONCLUSIONS: The overall concordance of PD-L1 between cytology and biopsies is rather good but with significant variation between laboratories, which calls for local quality assurance.