Christina I Selinger1, Bob T Li2,3,4, Nick Pavlakis2,4, Matthew Links5, Anthony J Gill4,6, Adrian Lee2, Stephen Clarke2,4, Thang N Tran1, Trina Lum1, Po Y Yip7,8,9,10, Lisa Horvath4,7,11, Bing Yu4,12, Maija R J Kohonen-Corish7,8,13, Sandra A O'Toole1,4,7, Wendy A Cooper1,4,8. 1. Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. 3. Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 4. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia. 6. Cancer Diagnosis and Pathology Group, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. 7. The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. 8. School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 9. Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 10. Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Campbelltown Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 11. Medical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 12. Department of Medical Genomics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 13. St Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the prevalence of ROS1 rearrangements in a retrospective and prospective diagnostic Australian cohort and evaluate the effectiveness of immunohistochemical screening. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort of 278 early stage lung adenocarcinomas and an additional 104 prospective non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases referred for routine molecular testing were evaluated. ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed (D4D6 clone, Cell Signaling Technology) on all cases as well as fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) using the ZytoVision and Abbott Molecular ROS1 FISH probes, with ≥15% of cells with split signals considered positive for rearrangement. Eighty-eight cases (32%) from the retrospective cohort showed staining by ROS1 IHC, and one case (0.4%) showed ROS1 rearrangement by FISH. Nineteen of the prospective diagnostic cases showed ROS1 IHC staining, 12 (12%) cases of which were confirmed as ROS1 rearranged by FISH. There were no ROS1 rearranged cases that showed no expression of ROS1 with IHC. The ROS1 rearranged cases in the prospective cohort were all EGFR wild-type and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-negative. The sensitivity of ROS1 IHC in the retrospective cohort was 100% and specificity was 76%. CONCLUSIONS: ROS1 rearrangements are rare events in lung adenocarcinomas. Selection of cases for ROS1 FISH testing, by excluding EGFR/ALK-positive cases and use of IHC to screen for potentially positive cases, can be used to enrich for the likelihood of identifying a ROS1 rearranged lung cancer and prevent the need to undertake expensive and time-consuming FISH testing in all cases.
AIMS: To assess the prevalence of ROS1 rearrangements in a retrospective and prospective diagnostic Australian cohort and evaluate the effectiveness of immunohistochemical screening. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort of 278 early stage lung adenocarcinomas and an additional 104 prospective non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases referred for routine molecular testing were evaluated. ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed (D4D6 clone, Cell Signaling Technology) on all cases as well as fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) using the ZytoVision and Abbott Molecular ROS1 FISH probes, with ≥15% of cells with split signals considered positive for rearrangement. Eighty-eight cases (32%) from the retrospective cohort showed staining by ROS1 IHC, and one case (0.4%) showed ROS1 rearrangement by FISH. Nineteen of the prospective diagnostic cases showed ROS1 IHC staining, 12 (12%) cases of which were confirmed as ROS1 rearranged by FISH. There were no ROS1 rearranged cases that showed no expression of ROS1 with IHC. The ROS1 rearranged cases in the prospective cohort were all EGFR wild-type and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-negative. The sensitivity of ROS1 IHC in the retrospective cohort was 100% and specificity was 76%. CONCLUSIONS:ROS1 rearrangements are rare events in lung adenocarcinomas. Selection of cases for ROS1 FISH testing, by excluding EGFR/ALK-positive cases and use of IHC to screen for potentially positive cases, can be used to enrich for the likelihood of identifying a ROS1 rearranged lung cancer and prevent the need to undertake expensive and time-consuming FISH testing in all cases.
Authors: Kristin Bergethon; Alice T Shaw; Sai-Hong Ignatius Ou; Ryohei Katayama; Christine M Lovly; Nerina T McDonald; Pierre P Massion; Christina Siwak-Tapp; Adriana Gonzalez; Rong Fang; Eugene J Mark; Julie M Batten; Haiquan Chen; Keith D Wilner; Eunice L Kwak; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Carbone; Hongbin Ji; Jeffrey A Engelman; Mari Mino-Kenudson; William Pao; A John Iafrate Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Al Charest; Erik W Wilker; Margaret E McLaughlin; Keara Lane; Ram Gowda; Shanie Coven; Kevin McMahon; Steven Kovach; Yun Feng; Michael B Yaffe; Tyler Jacks; David Housman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Po Yee Yip; Bing Yu; Wendy A Cooper; Christina I Selinger; Chiu Chin Ng; Catherine W Kennedy; Maija R J Kohonen-Corish; Brian C McCaughan; Ronald J Trent; Michael J Boyer; James G Kench; Lisa G Horvath; Sandra A O'Toole Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Klarisa Rikova; Ailan Guo; Qingfu Zeng; Anthony Possemato; Jian Yu; Herbert Haack; Julie Nardone; Kimberly Lee; Cynthia Reeves; Yu Li; Yerong Hu; Zhiping Tan; Matthew Stokes; Laura Sullivan; Jeffrey Mitchell; Randy Wetzel; Joan Macneill; Jian Min Ren; Jin Yuan; Corey E Bakalarski; Judit Villen; Jon M Kornhauser; Bradley Smith; Daiqiang Li; Xinmin Zhou; Steven P Gygi; Ting-Lei Gu; Roberto D Polakiewicz; John Rush; Michael J Comb Journal: Cell Date: 2007-12-14 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Ashley H Birch; Suzanna L Arcand; Kathleen K Oros; Kurosh Rahimi; A Kevin Watters; Diane Provencher; Celia M Greenwood; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson; Patricia N Tonin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maisam Makarem; Doreen A Ezeife; Adam C Smith; Janice J N Li; Jennifer H Law; Ming-Sound Tsao; Natasha B Leighl Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: D G Bebb; J Agulnik; R Albadine; S Banerji; G Bigras; C Butts; C Couture; J C Cutz; P Desmeules; D N Ionescu; N B Leighl; B Melosky; W Morzycki; F Rashid-Kolvear; Clin Lab; H S Sekhon; A C Smith; T L Stockley; E Torlakovic; Z Xu; M S Tsao Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Tamkin Ahmadzada; Steven Kao; Glen Reid; Michael Boyer; Annabelle Mahar; Wendy A Cooper Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 4.241