Companion diagnostic tests for treatment of lung cancer patients: what are the current and future challenges?

Current challenges and practical aspects of molecular pathology for non-small cell lung cancers

The continuing evolution of treatment options in thoracic oncology requires the pathologist to regularly update diagnostic algorithms for management of tumor samples. It is essential to decide on the best way to use tissue biopsies, cytological samples, as well as liquid biopsies to identify the different mandatory predictive biomarkers of lung cancers in a short turnaround time. However, biological resources and laboratory member workforce are limited and may be not sufficient for the increased complexity of molecular pathological analyses and for complementary translational research development. In this context, the surgical pathologist is the only one who makes the decisions whether or not to send specimens to immunohistochemical and molecular pathology platforms. Moreover, the pathologist can rapidly contact the oncologist to obtain a new tissue biopsy and/or a liquid biopsy if he/she considers that the biological material is not sufficient in quantity or quality for assessment of predictive biomarkers. Inadequate control of algorithms and sampling workflow may lead to false negative, inconclusive, and incomplete findings, resulting in inappropriate choice of therapeutic strategy and potentially poor outcome for patients. International guidelines for lung cancer treatment are based on the results of the expression of different proteins and on genomic alterations. These guidelines have been established taking into consideration the best practices to be set up in clinical and molecular pathology laboratories. This review addresses the current predictive biomarkers and algorithms for use in thoracic oncology molecular pathology as well as the central role of the pathologist, notably in the molecular tumor board and her/his participation in the treatment decision-making. The perspectives in this setting will be discussed.

Daily Practice Assessment of KRAS Status in NSCLC Patients: A New Challenge for the Thoracic Pathologist Is Right around the Corner

Simple Summary

RAS mutation is the most frequent oncogenic alteration in human cancers and KRAS is the most frequently mutated, notably in non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLC). Various attempts to inhibit KRAS in the past were unsuccessful in these latter tumors. However, recently, several small molecules (AMG510, MRTX849, JNJ-74699157, and LY3499446) have been developed to specifically target KRAS G12C-mutated tumors, which seems promising for patient treatment and should soon be administered in daily practice for non-squamous (NS)-NSCLC. In this context, it will be mandatory to systematically assess the KRAS status in routine clinical practice, at least in advanced NS-NSCLC, leading to new challenges for thoracic oncologists.

Abstract

KRAS mutations are among the most frequent genomic alterations identified in non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinomas (NS-NSCLC), notably in lung adenocarcinomas. In most cases, these mutations are mutually exclusive, with different genomic alterations currently known to be sensitive to therapies targeting EGFR, ALK, BRAF, ROS1, and NTRK. Recently, several promising clinical trials targeting KRAS mutations, particularly for KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC, have established new hope for better treatment of patients. In parallel, other studies have shown that NSCLC harboring co-mutations in KRAS and STK11 or KEAP1 have demonstrated primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Thus, the assessment of the KRAS status in advanced-stage NS-NSCLC has become essential to setting up an optimal therapeutic strategy in these patients. This stimulated the development of new algorithms for the management of NSCLC samples in pathology laboratories and conditioned reorganization of optimal health care of lung cancer patients by the thoracic pathologists. This review addresses the recent data concerning the detection of KRAS mutations in NSCLC and focuses on the new challenges facing pathologists in daily practice for KRAS status assessment.

Editorial: Global Regulatory Initiatives Deliver Accelerated Approval of the First Bispecific Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibody for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the number of completed clinical trials, particularly in oncology. Between 80–85% of all lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and of these, between 2–3% have an EGFR exon 20 insertion, which is associated with increased cell proliferation, metastasis, and a lack of response to chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Until this year, there were no available targeted therapies for advanced NSCLC with this genetic subtype. However, in May 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant^®), a bispecific monoclonal antibody, targeting activating and resistant EGFR and MET mutations and amplifications. This FDA approval was for adult patients with locally advanced metastatic NSCLC, with disease progression on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The FDA also approved the Guardant360^® companion diagnostic, a next-generation sequencing platform for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), which is a liquid biopsy assay. In 2019, Project Orbis was launched by the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence as a global collaborative review program to facilitate rapid global access for patients to innovative cancer therapies. This Editorial aims to highlight how global regulatory initiatives from the FDA have delivered accelerated approval of the first bispecific therapeutic monoclonal antibody, amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant^®), and a companion diagnostic for patients with advanced NSCLC with an EGFR exon 20 insertion.

EGFR Status Assessment for Better Care of Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: What Is Changing in the Daily Practice of Pathologists?

The recent emergence of novel neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapies for early stage (I-IIIA) non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), mainly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting EGFR mutations and immunotherapy or chemo-immunotherapy, has suddenly required the evaluation of biomarkers predictive of the efficacy of different treatments in these patients. Currently, the choice of one or another of these treatments mainly depends on the results of immunohistochemistry for PD-L1 and of the status of EGFR and ALK. This new development has led to the setup of different analyses for clinical and molecular pathology laboratories, which have had to rapidly integrate a number of new challenges into daily practice and to establish new organization for decision making. This review outlines the impact of the management of biological samples in laboratories and discusses perspectives for pathologists within the framework of EGFR TKIs in early stage NSCLC.

Perspectives in pathomics in head and neck cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pathology is the cornerstone of cancer care. Pathomics, which represents the use of artificial intelligence in digital pathology, is an emerging and promising field that will revolutionize medical and surgical pathology in the coming years. This review provides an overview of pathomics, its current and future applications and its most relevant applications in Head and Neck cancer care.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of studies investigating the use of artificial intelligence in pathology is rapidly growing, especially as the utilization of deep learning has shown great potential with Whole Slide Images. Even though numerous steps still remain before its clinical use, Pathomics has been used for varied applications comprising of computer-assisted diagnosis, molecular anomalies prediction, tumor microenvironment and biomarker identification as well as prognosis evaluation. The majority of studies were performed on the most frequent cancers, notably breast, prostate, and lung. Interesting results were also found in Head and Neck cancers.

SUMMARY

Even if its use in Head and Neck cancer care is still low, Pathomics is a powerful tool to improve diagnosis, identify prognostic factors and new biomarkers. Important challenges lie ahead before its use in a clinical practice, notably the lack of information on how AI makes its decisions, the slow deployment of digital pathology, and the need for extensively validated data in order to obtain authorities approval. Regardless, pathomics will most likely improve pathology in general, including Head and Neck cancer care in the coming years.

Real-World Evidence of Diagnostic Testing for Driver Oncogene Mutations in Lung Cancer in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic testing is important in determining appropriate treatment for individuals with lung cancer. In 2018, testing of five biomarkers (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, programmed cell death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) was approved in Japan. Information is lacking regarding real-world testing patterns.

METHODS

This descriptive, retrospective observational study used the Japan Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. (MDV), database (June 2017-November 2018) and covered data for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and PD-L1; records on BRAF testing were not yet available. Adults diagnosed with having lung cancer (International Classification of Diseases-10 C34) with record of any biomarker test ordered were included.

RESULTS

Of 8323 patients with any biomarker test, 83.2% were tested for EGFR, 55.3% for ALK, 32.2% ROS1, and 77.2% PD-L1. Combinations of EGFR with other biomarkers accounted for approximately 80% of the testing patterns; 1427 patients (17.1%) had combination testing ordered for EGFR/ALK/ROS1/PD-L1, but some biomarker combinations were tested in less than 1% of the cases. Median time from first testing order to treatment order was 22 (range: 2-525) days overall and increased with number of testing instances: 21 (2-509) days for patients with one, 28 (3-525) days for patients with two, and 30 (9-502) days for patients with three. A 7-day pattern of peaks was observed in the test order date and time to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world evidence revealed variations in diagnostic testing patterns, which could affect time to treatment in Japan. Variations are likely influenced by individual biomarker prioritization considering limited tissue samples in clinical practice.