Concordance of Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression between SP142 and 22C3/SP263 Assays in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

The Role of Immunotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC)

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype, generally associated with a high risk of recurrence and poor prognosis. Our understanding of the heterogeneity of TNBC has increased over the past decade, and with it a recognition that some TNBCs are immunogenically active. This finding has led to the investigation of immunotherapy-based approaches for treatment of both early and advanced-stage TNBC. In this review, we provide an overview of the biologic rationale for immunotherapy use in TNBC, and review data from seminal trials which have culminated in the approval of immunotherapy for both early and advanced TNBC. Identification of predictive biomarkers to aid in treatment selection, development of novel treatment combinations to combat resistance, and refinement of therapeutic targets enables continued improvement in outcomes with immunotherapy for TNBC.

Discordance in PD-L1 expression using 22C3 and SP142 assays between primary and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

AIMS

SP142 and 22C3 assays are approved companion diagnostic assays for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy selection in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The discordance in PD-L1 status between primary and metastatic tumors in the same patient has been poorly characterized. Here, we examined the concordance of PD-L1 status between the two assays and between primary tumors and metastases for each assay.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated tumor samples from 160 patients with TNBC, including 45 patients with paired primary and metastatic tumors. PD-L1 status was assessed using SP142 and 22C3 assays, to determine the immune cell (IC) score, tumor cell (TC) score (SP142 and 22C3), and combined proportion score (CPS: 22C3).

RESULTS

The concordance of PD-L1 positivity at diagnostic cutoffs for SP142 (IC ≥ 1) and 22C3 (CPS ≥ 10) was substantial (κ = 0.80) in primary tumors and moderate (κ = 0.60) in metastatic tumors. In comparison, between primary and metastatic tumors, the concordance with 22C3 was moderate (κ = 0.50), whereas that with SP142 was poor (κ = -0.03). Among patients who were PD-L1 negative for both assays in primary tumors, 7/30 (23.3%) were PD-L1 positive for both or either 22C3 or SP142 in the metastatic tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

The inter-assay concordance of PD-L1 positivity at diagnostic cutoffs was substantial in primary tumors and moderate in metastatic tumors. Discordance between PD-L1 status in primary and metastatic tumors was frequently observed, especially with SP142. Some patients with a PD-L1-negative status in primary tumors may still be candidates for immunotherapy, depending on the PD-L1 status in their metastatic tumors.

Comparison of SP142 and 22C3 PD-L1 assays in a population-based cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients in the context of their clinically established scoring algorithms

BACKGROUND

Immunohistochemical (IHC) PD-L1 expression is commonly employed as predictive biomarker for checkpoint inhibitors in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, IHC evaluation methods are non-uniform and further studies are needed to optimize clinical utility.

METHODS

We compared the concordance, prognostic value and gene expression between PD-L1 IHC expression by SP142 immune cell (IC) score and 22C3 combined positive score (CPS; companion IHC diagnostic assays for atezolizumab and pembrolizumab, respectively) in a population-based cohort of 232 early-stage TNBC patients.

RESULTS

The expression rates of PD-L1 for SP142 IC ≥ 1%, 22C3 CPS ≥ 10, 22C3 CPS ≥ 1 and 22C3 IC ≥ 1% were 50.9%, 27.2%, 53.9% and 41.8%, respectively. The analytical concordance (kappa values) between SP142 IC+ and these three different 22C3 scorings were 73.7% (0.48, weak agreement), 81.5% (0.63) and 86.6% (0.73), respectively. The SP142 assay was better at identifying 22C3 positive tumors than the 22C3 assay was at detecting SP142 positive tumors. PD-L1 (CD274) gene expression (mRNA) showed a strong positive association with all two-categorical IHC scorings of the PD-L1 expression, irrespective of antibody and cut-off (Spearman Rho ranged from 0.59 to 0.62; all p-values < 0.001). PD-L1 IHC positivity and abundance of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes were of positive prognostic value in univariable regression analyses in patients treated with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, where it was strongest for 22C3 CPS ≥ 10 and distant relapse-free interval (HR = 0.18, p = 0.019). However, PD-L1 status was not independently prognostic when adjusting for abundance of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support that the SP142 and 22C3 IHC assays, with their respective clinically applied scoring algorithms, are not analytically equivalent where they identify partially non-overlapping subpopulations of TNBC patients and cannot be substituted with one another regarding PD-L1 detection. Trial registration The Swedish Cancerome Analysis Network - Breast (SCAN-B) study, retrospectively registered 2nd Dec 2014 at ClinicalTrials.gov; ID NCT02306096.

Immune Biomarkers in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Improving the Predictivity of Current Testing Methods

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) poses a significant challenge in terms of prognosis and disease recurrence. The limited treatment options and the development of resistance to chemotherapy make it particularly difficult to manage these patients. However, recent research has been shifting its focus towards biomarker-based approaches for TNBC, with a particular emphasis on the tumor immune landscape. Immune biomarkers in TNBC are now a subject of great interest due to the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in these tumors. This characteristic often coincides with the presence of PD-L1 expression on both neoplastic cells and immune cells within the tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, a subset of TNBC harbor mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) TNBC, which is frequently accompanied by microsatellite instability (MSI). All of these immune biomarkers hold actionable potential for guiding patient selection in immunotherapy. To fully capitalize on these opportunities, the identification of additional or complementary biomarkers and the implementation of highly customized testing strategies are of paramount importance in TNBC. In this regard, this article aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art in immune-related biomarkers for TNBC. Specifically, it focuses on the various testing methodologies available and sheds light on the immediate future perspectives for patient selection. By delving into the advancements made in understanding the immune landscape of TNBC, this study aims to contribute to the growing body of knowledge in the field. The ultimate goal is to pave the way for the development of more personalized testing strategies, ultimately improving outcomes for TNBC patients.

PD-L1 testing by immunohistochemistry in immuno-oncology

Immunotherapy, based on immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and/or Programmed Death Receptor 1 (PD-1), has substantially improved the outcomes of patients with various cancers. However, only ~30% of patients benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Tumor PD-L1 expression, assessed by immunohistochemistry, is the most widely validated and used predictive biomarker to guide the selection of patients for immune checkpoint inhibitors. PD-L1 assessment may be challenging due to the necessity for different companion diagnostic assays for required specific immune checkpoint inhibitors and a relatively high level of inter-assay variability in terms of performance and cutoff levels. In this review, we discuss the role of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry as a predictive test in immunotherapy (immuno-oncology), highlight the complexity of the PD-L1 testing landscape, discuss various preanalytical, analytical and clinical issues that are associated with PD-L1 assays, and provide some insights into optimization of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in immuno-oncology.

Rationale and Clinical Research Progress on PD-1/PD-L1-Based Immunotherapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), a highly aggressive and malignant tumor, currently lacks an effective treatment. There has been some progress in the treatment of mTNBC with programmed death receptor-1/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immunotherapy in recent years. The combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with other therapies is a noteworthy treatment strategy. Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy or small-molecule inhibitors still faces many challenges. Additionally, there are some new immunotherapy targets in development. We aimed to further evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of immunotherapy for treating mTNBC and to propose new immunotherapy strategies. This review explains the rationale and results of existing clinical trials evaluating PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors alone or in combination for the treatment of mTNBC. For patients with aggressive tumors and poor health, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, either alone or in combination with other modalities, have proven to be effective. However, more research is needed to explore more effective immunotherapy regimens that will lead to new breakthroughs in the treatment of mTNBC.

Update on prognostic and predictive biomarkers of breast cancer

Breast cancer represents a heterogeneous group of human cancer at both histological and molecular levels. Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) are the most commonly used biomarkers in clinical practice for making treatment plans for breast cancer patients by oncologists. Recently, PD-L1 testing plays an important role for immunotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer. With the increased understanding of the molecular characterization of breast cancer and the emergence of novel targeted therapies, more potential biomarkers are needed for the development of more personalized treatments. In this review, we summarized several main prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer at genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic levels, including hormone receptors, HER2, Ki67, multiple gene expression assays, PD-L1 testing, mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability, tumor mutational burden, PIK3CA, ESR1 andNTRK and briefly introduced the roles of digital imaging analysis in breast biomarker evaluation.

Integrating Immunotherapy Into the Treatment Landscape for Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is the most aggressive histologic subtype of breast cancer for which, until recently, treatment options have been limited to chemotherapy. In recent years, an improved understanding of the importance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and the tumor microenvironment in TNBC has led to investigation of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment. There is now evidence from several randomized controlled trials that supports the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to first-line treatment of advanced TNBC and to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage II-III TNBC. In parallel, the PARP inhibitors have emerged as a targeted therapy option for patients with HER2-negative breast cancer harboring mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2. Here, we review the recent clinical trials that inform the integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors into treatments for TNBC and discuss ongoing challenges-including patient selection, management of resistance to post-checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and combining immunotherapy with targeted therapies, including PARP inhibitors.

Fatty acid synthetase expression in triple-negative breast cancer

Background

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has a relatively poor prognosis. Research has identified potential metabolic targets, including fatty acid metabolism, in TNBC. The absence of effective target therapies for TNBC led to exploration of the role of fatty acid synthetase (FASN) as a potential target for TNBC therapy. Here, we analyzed the expression of FASN, a representative lipid metabolism–related protein, and investigated the association between FASN expression and Ki-67 and the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) biomarkers in TNBC.

Methods

Immunohistochemical expression of FASN was analyzed in 166 patients with TNBC. For analytical purposes, patients with 0–1+ FASN staining were grouped as low-grade FASN and patients with 2–3+ FASN staining as high-grade FASN.

Results

FASN expression was observed in 47.1% of TNBC patients. Low and high expression of FASN was identified in 75.9% and 24.1%, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found in T category, N category, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, or recurrence rate between the low and high-FASN expression groups. Ki-67 proliferation level was significantly different between the low and high-FASN expression groups. FASN expression was significantly related to Ki-67 as the level increased. There was no significant difference in PD-L1 positivity between the low- and high-FASN expression groups.

Conclusions

We identified FASN expression in 166 TNBC patients. The Ki-67 proliferation index was positively correlated with FASN level, indicating higher proliferation activity as FASN increases. However, there was no statistical association with PD-L1 SP142, the currently FDA-approved assay, or FASN expression level.

De-glycosylated membrane PD-L1 in tumor tissues as a biomarker for responsiveness to atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in advanced breast cancer patients

The atezolizumab (Tecentriq), a humanized antibody against human programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), combined with nab-paclitaxel was granted with accelerated approval to treat unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) due to the encouraging positive results of the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial using PD-L1 biomarker from immune cells to stratify patients. However, the post-market study IMpassion131 did not support the original observation, resulting in the voluntary withdrawal of atezolizumab from the indication in breast cancer by Genentech in 2021. Emerging evidence has revealed a high frequency of false negative result using the standard immunohistochemical (IHC) staining due to heavy glycosylation of PD-L1. The removal of glycosylation prevents from the false negative staining, enabling more accurate assessment of PD-L1 levels and improving prediction for response to immune checkpoint therapy. In the present study, the natural and de-glycosylated PD-L1 expression in tumor and immune cells from nine TNBC patients were analyzed by using clone 28-8 monoclonal antibody to correlate with treatment outcome. Our results demonstrate that: (1) Removal of the glycosylation indeed enhances the detection of PD-L1 by IHC staining, (2) The PD-L1 levels on tumor cell surface after removal of the glycosylation correlates well with clinical responses for atezolizumab treatment; (3) The criteria used in the IMpassion130 and IMpassion131 trials which scored the natural PD-L1 in the immune cells failed to correlate with the clinical response. Taken together, tumor cell surface staining of PD-L1 with de-glycosylation has a significant correlation with the clinical response for atezolizumab treatment, suggesting that treatment of atezolizumab may be worthy of further consideration with de-glycosylation procedure as a patient stratification strategy. A larger cohort to validate this important issue is warranted to ensure right patient population who could benefit from the existing FDA-approved drugs.

Research advances and new challenges in overcoming triple-negative breast cancer

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a pathological term used to identify invasive breast cancers that lack expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors and do not have pathologic overexpression of the HER2 receptor or harbor ERBB2 gene amplification. TNBC includes a collection of multiple distinct disease entities based upon genomic, transcriptomic and phenotypic characterization. Despite improved clinical outcomes with the development of novel therapeutics, TNBC still yields the worst prognosis among all clinical subtypes of breast cancer. We will systematically review evidence of the genomic evolution of TNBC, as well as potential mechanisms of disease progression and treatment resistance, defined in part by advances in next-generation DNA sequencing technology (including single cell sequencing), providing a new perspective on treatment strategies, and promise to reveal new potential therapeutic targets. Moreover, we review novel therapies aimed at homologous recombination deficiency, PI3 kinase/AKT/PTEN pathway activation, androgen receptor blockade, immune checkpoint inhibition, as well as antibody-drug conjugates engaging novel cell surface targets, including recent progress in pre-clinical and clinical studies which further validate the role of targeted therapies in TNBC. Despite major advances in treatment for TNBC, including FDA approval of 2 PARP inhibitors for metastatic TNBC, the crossing of the superiority boundary in a phase 3, placebo-controlled study of adjuvant olaparib in early-stage patients with germline BRCA-mutated high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer, the FDA approval of 2 PD-(L)1 checkpoint antibodies for metastatic TNBC, and the FDA approval of the first antibody drug conjugate for TNBC, significant challenges remain. For example, despite the dawn of immunotherapy in metastatic TNBC, durable responses are limited to a small subset of patients, definitive biomarkers for patient selection are lacking, and the Oncology Drug Advisory Committee to the FDA has recently voted against approval of an anti-PD-1 checkpoint antibody high risk early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant setting. Also, despite early positive randomized phase 2 studies of AKT inhibition in metastatic TNBC, a recent phase 3 registration trial failed to validate earlier phase 2 data. Finally, we note that level one evidence for clinical efficacy of androgen receptor blockade in TNBC is still lacking. To meet these and other challenges, we will catalogue the ongoing exponential increase in interest in basic, translational, and clinical research to develop new treatment paradigms for TNBC.

Predictive Biomarkers of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Response in Breast Cancer: Looking beyond Tumoral PD-L1

Immune checkpoint inhibitors utilize the immune system to kill cancer cells and are now widely applied across numerous malignancies. Pembrolizumab has two breast-specific indications in triple-negative disease. Currently, programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor and surrounding immune cells is the only validated predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in breast cancer; however, it can be imprecise. Additional biomarkers are needed to identify the patient population who will derive the most benefit from these therapies. The tumor immune microenvironment contains many biomarker candidates. In tumor cells, tumor mutational burden has emerged as a robust biomarker across malignancies in general, with higher burden cancers demonstrating improved response, but will need further refinement for less mutated cancers. Preliminary studies suggest that mutations in breast cancer gene 2 (BRCA-2) are associated with increased immune infiltration and response to ICI therapy. Other genomic alterations are also being investigated as potential predictive biomarkers. In immune cells, increased quantity of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells have correlated with response to immunotherapy treatment. The role of other immune cell phenotypes is being investigated. Peripherally, many liquid-based biomarker strategies such as PD-L1 expression on circulating tumor cells and peripheral immune cell quantification are being studied; however, these strategies require further standardization and refinement prior to large-scale testing. Ultimately, multiple biomarkers utilized together may be needed to best identify the appropriate patients for these treatments.

Soluble PD-L1 through alternative polyadenylation works as a decoy in lung cancer immunotherapy

Immune checkpoint therapy targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis is a novel development in anticancer therapy and has been applied to clinical medicine. However, there are still some problems, including a relatively low response rate, innate mechanisms of resistance against immune checkpoint blockades, and the absence of reliable biomarkers to predict responsiveness. In this study of in vitro and in vivo models, we demonstrate that PD-L1-vInt4, a splicing variant of PD-L1, plays a role as a decoy in anti-PD-L1 antibody treatment. First, we showed that PD-L1-vInt4 was detectable in clinical samples and that it was possible to visualize the secreting variants with IHC. By overexpressing the PD-L1-secreted splicing variant on MC38 cells, we observed that an immune-suppressing effect was not induced by their secretion alone. We then demonstrated that PD-L1-vInt4 secretion resisted anti-PD-L1 antibody treatment, compared with wild type PD-L1, which was explicable by the PD-L1-vInt4's decoying of the anti-PD-L1 antibody. The decoying function of PD-L1 splicing variants may be one of the reasons for cancers being resistant to anti-PD-L1 therapy. Measuring serum PD-L1 levels might be helpful in deciding the therapeutic strategy.

PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Assay Comparison in Atezolizumab Plus nab-Paclitaxel-Treated Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

In the phase III IMpassion130 study, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (A+nP) showed clinical benefit in advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer patients who were programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ (tumor-infiltrating immune cells [IC] ≥1%) using the SP142 immunohistochemistry assay. Here we evaluate 2 other PD-L1 assays for analytical concordance with SP142 and patient-associated clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Samples from 614 patients (68.1% of intention-to-treat population) were centrally evaluated by immunohistochemistry for PD-L1 status on IC (VENTANA SP142, SP263, Dako 22C3) or as a combined positive score (CPS; 22C3).

RESULTS

Using SP142, SP263, and 22C3 assays, PD-L1 IC ≥1% prevalence was 46.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 42.5% to 50.4%), 74.9% (95% CI = 71.5% to 78.3%), and 73.1% (95% CI = 69.6% to 76.6%), respectively; 80.9% were 22C3 CPS ≥1. At IC ≥1% (+), the analytical concordance between SP142 and SP263 and 22C3 was 69.2% and 68.7%, respectively. Almost all SP142+ cases were captured by other assays (double positive), but several SP263+ (29.6%) or 22C3+ (29.0%) cases were SP142- (single positive). A+nP clinical activity vs placebo+nP in SP263+ and 22C3+ patients (progression-free survival [PFS] hazard ratios [HRs] = 0.64 to 0.68; overall survival [OS] HRs = 0.75 to 0.79) was driven by double-positive cases (PFS HRs = 0.60 to 0.61; OS HRs = 0.71 to 0.75) rather than single-positive cases (PFS HRs = 0.68 to 0.81; OS HRs = 0.87 to 0.95). Concordance for harmonized cutoffs for SP263 (IC ≥4%) and 22C3 (CPS ≥10) to SP142 (IC ≥1%) was subpar (approximately 75%).

CONCLUSIONS

22C3 and SP263 assays identified more patients as PD-L1+ (IC ≥1%) than SP142. No inter-assay analytical equivalency was observed. Consistent improved A+nP efficacy was captured by the SP142 PD-L1 IC ≥1% subgroup nested within 22C3 and SP263 PD-L1+ (IC ≥1%) populations.

Biomarkers for breast cancer immunotherapy: PD-L1, TILs, and beyond

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently entered into the therapeutic scenario of metastatic breast cancer. However, only a proportion of patients benefit from ICIs and immune-based combinations, so the identification of reliable predictors of response remains an unmet need.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss potential predictors of response to ICIs in breast cancer, including PD-L1 expression, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and several other biomarkers and suggest future directions of research in this setting. A literature search was conducted in October 2021 of Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane library and Scopus databases; in addition, abstract of international cancer meetings were reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

In terms of predictors of response to immunotherapy in TNBC patients, several biomarkers are being evaluated. Valuable data on predictive biomarkers have recently emerged, including host-related factors, immune-related cells, and protein and genetic markers. Data supporting immunotherapy in the metastatic triple-negative breast cancer setting are not concordant, but there have been some positive phase III trials including IMpassion130 and KEYNOTE-355. Phase II and III (neo)adjuvant trials are supportive of this therapeutic strategy. Further investigations are warranted in this challenging area.

Characteristics and Spatially Defined Immune (micro)landscapes of Early-stage PD-L1-positive Triple-negative Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Programmed death ligand 1 [PD-(L)1]-targeted therapies have shown modest survival benefit in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). PD-L1+ microenvironments in TNBC are not well characterized and may inform combinatorial immune therapies. Herein, we characterized clinicopathologic features, RNA-based immune signatures, and spatially defined protein-based tumor-immune microenvironments (TIME) in early-stage PD-L1+ and PD-L1- TNBC.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

From a large cohort of chemotherapy-naïve TNBC, clinicopathologic features, deconvoluted RNA immune signatures, and intraepithelial and stromal TIME (Nanostring GeoMX) were identified in subsets of PD-L1+ and PD-L1- TNBC, as defined by FDA-approved PD-L1 companion assays.

RESULTS

228 of 499 (46%) TNBC were PD-L1+ (SP142: ≥1% immune cells-positive). Using PD-L1 22C3, 46% had combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 and 16% had CPS ≥10. PD-L1+ TNBC were higher grade with higher tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL; P < 0.05). PD-L1 was not associated with improved survival following adjustment for TILs and other variables. RNA profiles of PD-L1+ TNBC had increased dendritic cell, macrophage, and T/B cell subset features; and decreased myeloid-derived suppressor cells. PD-L1+ stromal and intraepithelial TIMEs were highly enriched in IDO-1, HLA-DR, CD40, and CD163 compared with PD-L1-TIME, with spatially specific alterations in CTLA-4, Stimulator of Interferon Genes (STING), and fibronectin. Macrophage- and antigen presentation-related proteins correlated most strongly with PD-L1 protein.

CONCLUSIONS

In this early-stage TNBC cohort, nearly 50% were PD-L1+ (SP142 companion assay) while 16% were PD-L1+ with the 22C3 companion assay. PD-L1+ TNBC had specific myeloid-derived and lymphoid features. Spatially defined PD-L1+ TIME were enriched in several clinically actionable immune proteins. These data may inform future studies on combinatorial immunotherapies for patients with PD-L1+ TNBC.See related commentary by Symmans, p. 5446.

PD-L1 expression evaluated by 22C3 antibody is a better prognostic marker than SP142/SP263 antibodies in breast cancer patients after resection

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of solid cancers. However, there is no unified predictive biomarker available for ICIs. We aimed to compare the prognostic impact of using three PD-L1 antibodies (SP142, SP263, and 22C3) for immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis. We retrospectively investigated tumor tissues derived from 316 breast cancer cases, by constructing tissue microarrays and by performing IHC staining. The immune-cell expression rate (for SP142 and SP263) and combined proportional score (for 22C3) were evaluated, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Prediction models were developed, and values of Harrel’s c-index and areas under curves were calculated to compare the discriminatory power. Negative PD-L1 expression based on the 22C3-IHC assay was determined to be an independent prognostic marker for recurrence-free survival (RFS, P = 0.0337) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, P = 0.0131). However, PD-L1 expression based on SP142- and SP263-IHC assays did not reveal a prognostic impact. Among the three antibodies, adding PD-L1 expression data obtained via 22C3-IHC assay to the null model led to a significant improvement in the discriminatory power of RFS and DMFS. We suggest that PD-L1 expression based on the 22C3-IHC assay is a superior prognostic marker than that based on SP142- and SP263-IHC assays.

Immunohistochemical comparison of three programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) assays in triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is the most aggressive type of breast cancer. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of anti-PD-L1 (anti-programmed death ligand-1) immunotherapy in patients with TNBC. However, the identification of TNBC patients who may benefit from immunotherapy is a critical issue. Several assays have been used to evaluate PD-L1 expression, and a few studies comparing PD-L1 expression using various primary antibodies in TNBC tissues have been reported. However, the expression profiles of the PD-L1 using the 73-10 assay have not yet been analyzed in TNBC tissues.

METHODS

We analyzed the PD-L1 immunohistochemical profiles of 62 women with TNBC using the 73-10, SP142 (companion diagnostic for atezolizumab), and E1L3N assays. PD-L1 expression on immune cells (ICs) and tumor cells (TCs) was also evaluated, and PD-L1 positivity was defined as a PD-L1-expressing ICs or TCs ≥ 1%.

RESULTS

The expression rates of PD-L1 were 79.0%, 67.7%, and 46.8% on ICs, and 17.7%, 6.5%, and 12.9% on TCs using the 73-10, SP142, and E1L3N assays, respectively. The concordance rates between the 73-10 and SP142 assays were 85.5% (on ICs) and 88.7% (on TCs), respectively, and substantial agreement on ICs (coefficient 0.634) and moderate agreement (coefficient 0.485) on TCs were noted. Sample age and tumor diameter did not influence the ratio of PD-L1 expression among the assays.

CONCLUSIONS

The positive rate on ICs and TCs of the 73-10 assay was higher than that of the SP 142 and E1L3N assays. Although substantial agreement on ICs and moderate agreement on TCs between the 73-10 and SP142 assays was noted in the present cohort, further studies are needed to clarify the PD-L1 expression status using various primary antibodies in a larger patient population. This would lead to the establishment of an effective evaluation method to assess the predictive value of anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy.

SP142 PD-L1 Scoring Shows High Interobserver and Intraobserver Agreement in Triple-negative Breast Carcinoma But Overall Low Percentage Agreement With Other PD-L1 Clones SP263 and 22C3

SP142 programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status predicts response to atezolizumab in triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC). Prevalence of VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay positivity, concordance with the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay and Dako PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay, and association with clinicopathologic features were assessed in 447 TNBCs. SP142 PD-L1 intraobserver and interobserver agreement was investigated in a subset of 60 TNBCs, with scores enriched around the 1% cutoff. The effect of a 1-hour training video on pretraining and posttraining scores was ascertained. At a 1% cutoff, 34.2% of tumors were SP142 PD-L1 positive. SP142 PD-L1 positivity was significantly associated with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (P <0.01), and node negativity (P=0.02), but not with tumor grade (P=0.35), tumor size (P=0.58), or BRCA mutation (P=0.53). Overall percentage agreement (OPA) for intraobserver and interobserver agreement was 95.0% and 93.7%, respectively, among 5 pathologists trained in TNBC SP142 PD-L1 scoring. In 5 TNBC SP142 PD-L1-naive pathologists, significantly higher OPA to the reference score was achieved after video training (posttraining OPA 85.7%, pretraining OPA 81.5%, P<0.05). PD-L1 status at a 1% cutoff was assessed by SP142 and SP263 in 420 cases, and by SP142 and 22C3 in 423 cases, with OPA of 88.1% and 85.8%, respectively. The VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay is reproducible for classifying TNBC PD-L1 status by trained observers; however, it is not analytically equivalent to the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay and Dako PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer has historically been a disease for which immunotherapy was largely unavailable. Recently, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has demonstrated efficacy, including longer progression-free survival and increased overall survival in subsets of patients. Based on clinical benefit in randomized trials, ICIs in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of some patients with advanced/metastatic TNBC have been approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), expanding options for patients. Ongoing questions remain, however, about the optimal chemotherapy backbone for immunotherapy, appropriate biomarker-based selection of patients for treatment, the optimal strategy for immunotherapy treatment in earlier stage disease, and potential use in histological subtypes other than TNBC. To provide guidance to the oncology community on these and other important concerns, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew upon the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for breast cancer, including diagnostic testing, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations. The evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers treating patients with breast cancer.

Novel uses of immunohistochemistry in breast pathology: interpretation and pitfalls

Immunohistochemistry is an essential component of diagnostic breast pathology. The emergence of novel assays and applications is accompanied by new interpretation criteria and potential pitfalls. Immunohistochemistry assists in supporting breast origin for primary or metastatic carcinomas and identifying non-mammary metastases to the breast; however, no single immunostain is perfectly sensitive nor specific. GATA3 and Sox10 are particularly useful immunostains to identify triple negative breast carcinoma, which are often negative for other markers of mammary differentiation. Sox10 labeling is a major potential diagnostic pitfall, as Sox10 and S-100 label both triple negative breast carcinoma and metastatic melanoma; a pan-cytokeratin immunostain should always be included for this differential diagnosis. Novel immunohistochemistry serves as surrogates for the molecular alterations unique to several of special-type breast carcinomas, including the use of MYB in adenoid cystic carcinoma, pan-TRK in secretory carcinoma, and mutant IDH2 in tall cell carcinoma with reversed polarity (TCCRP). In addition, PD-L1 immunohistochemistry is an emerging, albeit imperfect, biomarker for breast cancer immunotherapy, with different assay parameters and scoring criteria in breast carcinoma compared to other tumor types. The expanding repertoire of novel immunohistochemistry provides additional diagnostic tools and biomarkers that improve diagnostic breast pathology and patient care.

Current Progresses and Challenges of Immunotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

With improved understanding of the immunogenicity of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), immunotherapy has emerged as a promising candidate to treat this lethal disease owing to the lack of specific targets and effective treatments. While immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has been effectively used in immunotherapy for several types of solid tumor, monotherapies targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1), its ligand PD-L1, or cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) have shown little efficacy for TNBC patients. Over the past few years, various therapeutic candidates have been reviewed, attempting to improve ICI efficacy on TNBC through combinatorial treatment. In this review, we describe the clinical limitations of ICI and illustrate candidates from an immunological, pharmacological, and metabolic perspective that may potentiate therapy to improve the outcomes of TNBC patients.