| Literature DB >> 29285360 |
Masami Yoshida1, Tadasuke Nagatomo1, Takafumi Ohnishi1, Mayumi Kawashima1, Akira Naitoh1, Eiichi Morii1.
Abstract
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) improve the survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma, and determine the EGFR mutation status before treatment is necessary. In contrast to biopsy samples, cytological specimens are obtained less invasively and are useful for EGFR mutation analyses. Recently, novel antibodies against two major EGFR mutations were developed: SP111, which is specific for the E746-A750 deletion in exon 19; and SP125, which is specific for the L858R mutation. To the best of our knowledge, no study has evaluated cytological specimens using the two novel antibodies, thus their specificity and sensitivity were examined in surgical resection, and cytological lung adenocarcinoma samples in the present study. Previous screening for EGFR mutation status by molecular testing identified delE746-A750 in 3 cases and the L858R mutation in 7 cases; the other cases did not have the L858R or the delE746-A750 mutation. Using a four-grade scoring system (score 0 to 3+), the immunohistochemistry (IHC) and immunocytochemistry (ICC) results were compared with those of molecular testing. Using a score of ≥2 as positive, IHC and ICC using SP111 demonstrated sensitivities of 100 and 33.3%, and specificities of 100 and 100%, respectively. IHC and ICC using SP125 revealed sensitivities of 100 and 71.4%, and specificities of 100 and 100%, respectively. Therefore, screening for EGFR mutations by ICC may facilitate therapeutic decision-making, particularly in medical centers that are unable to perform molecular testing.Entities:
Keywords: epidermal growth factor receptor; immunocytochemistry; immunohistochemistry; lung adenocarcinoma; mutation-specific antibody
Year: 2017 PMID: 29285360 PMCID: PMC5740838 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2017.1451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Clin Oncol ISSN: 2049-9450
Patient characteristics and EGFR mutations status in primary NSCLC samples and comparative analysis of IHC and ICC.
| IHC | ICC | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient no. | Age, years | Sex | Stage | EGFR mutation status | SP111 | SP125 | Sample type | SP111 | SP125 |
| 1 | 60 | F | IB | L858R | 0 | 3+ | BB | 0 | 3+ |
| 2 | 77 | M | IB | L858R | 0 | 2+ | FNA | 0 | 1+ |
| 3 | 53 | F | IIA | L858R | 0 | 2+ | FNA | 0 | 3+ |
| 4 | 71 | M | IIA | L858R | 0 | 3+ | BB | 1+ | 3+ |
| 5 | 59 | F | IA | L858R | 0 | 2+ | FNA | 0 | 2+ |
| 6 | 76 | M | IA | L858R | 0 | 2+ | FNA | 0 | 1+ |
| 7 | 61 | M | IB | L858R | 0 | 3+ | FNA | 1+ | 2+ |
| 8 | 72 | M | IA | Exon 19 del | 2+ | 0 | BB | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 70 | F | IA | Exon 19 del | 3+ | 1+ | FNA | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 76 | M | IB | Exon 19 del | 3+ | 0 | FNA | 2+ | 0 |
| 11 | 69 | M | IIIA | No mutation | 0 | 0 | BB | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 72 | M | IIIA | No mutation | 0 | 0 | BB | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | 77 | M | IB | No mutation | 0 | 0 | FNA | 1+ | 1+ |
| 14 | 67 | M | IA | No mutation | 1+ | 0 | BB | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 53 | M | IB | No mutation | 0 | 0 | BB | 0 | 1+ |
| 16 | 54 | F | IA | No mutation | 0 | 1+ | BB | 0 | 1+ |
| 17 | 75 | M | IB | No mutation | 0 | 1+ | BB | 0 | 1+ |
BB, bronchial brush; FNA, fine-needle aspiration; M, male; F, female; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; IHC, immunohistochemistry; ICC, immunocytochemistry; NSCLC, non-small cell lung carcinoma.
Figure 1.Representative IHC fields using SP111. (A) No significant staining (score 0). (B) Light-yellow staining with no obvious particulates or yellow staining with obvious particulates in <10% of tumor cells (score 1+). (C) Yellow staining with obvious particulates in >10% of tumor cells or brown staining with obvious particulates in <10% of tumor cells. (D) Brown staining with obvious particulates in >10% of tumor cells. Magnification, ×200.
Figure 2.Representative IHC fields using SP125. (A) No significant staining (score 0). (B) Light-yellow staining with no obvious particulates or yellow staining with obvious particulates in <10% of tumor cells (score 1+). (C) Yellow staining with obvious particulates in >10% of tumor cells or brown staining with obvious particulates in <10% of tumor cells. (D) Brown staining with obvious particulates in >10% of tumor cells. Magnification, ×200.
Summary of IHC and molecular testing in resection samples.
| IHC | Exon19del (n=3) (%) | L858R (n=7) (%) | No mutation (n=7) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SP111-positive | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| SP111-negative | 0 (0) | 7 (100) | 7 (100) |
| SP125-positive | 0 (0) | 7 (100) | 0 (0) |
| SP125-negative | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | 7 (100) |
IHC, immunohistochemistry.
Figure 3.Representative ICC fields using SP111. Similar to IHC, a four-grade scoring system (0 to 3+) was employed. Scores of (A) 0, (B) 1+, and (C) 2+. Magnification, ×200.
Figure 4.Representative ICC fields using SP125. Similar to IHC, a four-grade score was employed. Scores of (A) 0, (B) 1+, (C) 2+, and (D) 3+. Magnification, ×200.
Summary of ICC and molecular testing in resection samples.
| ICC | Exon19del (n=3) (%) | L858R (n=7) (%) | No mutation (n=7) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SP111-positive | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| SP111-negative | 2 (66.7) | 7 (100) | 7 (100) |
| SP125-positive | 0 (0) | 5 (71.4) | 0 (0) |
| SP125-negative | 3 (100) | 2 (28.6) | 7 (100) |
ICC, immunocytochemistry.
Comparative analyses between IHC and ICC in accordance with grading.
| Consideration regarding positive result | Type | Sensitivity, % | Specificity, % | PPV, % | NPV, % | Cohen's Kappa Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score ≥1 | IHC | 100 | 57.1 | 76.9 | 100 | 0.611 |
| ICC | 100 | 55.6 | 66.7 | 100 | 0.239 | |
| Score ≥2 | IHC | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 1 |
| ICC | 60.0 | 100 | 100 | 63.6 | 0.553 | |
| Score ≥3 | IHC | 50.0 | 100 | 100 | 58.3 | 0.452 |
| ICC | 30.0 | 100 | 100 | 50.0 | 0.261 |
IHC, immunohistochemistry; ICC, immunocytochemistry; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.