Stenzinger, Albrecht

Abstract Recent advances in the field of immuno‐oncology have brought transformative changes in the management of cancer patients. The immune profile of tumours has been found to have key value in predicting disease prognosis and treatment response in various cancers. Multiplex immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence have emerged as potent tools for the simultaneous detection of multiple protein biomarkers in a single tissue section, thereby expanding opportunities for molecular and immune profiling while preserving tissue samples. By establishing the phenotype of individual tumour cells when distributed within a mixed cell population, the identification of clinically relevant biomarkers with high‐throughput multiplex immunophenotyping of tumour samples has great potential to guide appropriate treatment choices. Moreover, the emergence of novel multi‐marker imaging approaches can now provide unprecedented insights into the tumour microenvironment, including the potential interplay between various cell types. However, there are significant challenges to widespread integration of these technologies in daily research and clinical practice. This review addresses the challenges and potential solutions within a structured framework of action from a regulatory and clinical trial perspective. New developments within the field of immunophenotyping using multiplexed tissue imaging platforms and associated digital pathology are also described, with a specific focus on translational implications across different subtypes of cancer. © 2024 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Abstract Modern histologic imaging platforms coupled with machine learning methods have provided new opportunities to map the spatial distribution of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. However, there exists no standardized method for describing or analyzing spatial immune cell data, and most reported spatial analyses are rudimentary. In this review, we provide an overview of two approaches for reporting and analyzing spatial data (raster versus vector‐based). We then provide a compendium of spatial immune cell metrics that have been reported in the literature, summarizing prognostic associations in the context of a variety of cancers. We conclude by discussing two well‐described clinical biomarkers, the breast cancer stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes score and the colon cancer Immunoscore, and describe investigative opportunities to improve clinical utility of these spatial biomarkers. © 2023 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

AbstractThe clinical significance of the tumor‐immune interaction in breast cancer is now established, and tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have emerged as predictive and prognostic biomarkers for patients with triple‐negative (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2‐negative) breast cancer and HER2‐positive breast cancer. How computational assessments of TILs might complement manual TIL assessment in trial and daily practices is currently debated. Recent efforts to use machine learning (ML) to automatically evaluate TILs have shown promising results. We review state‐of‐the‐art approaches and identify pitfalls and challenges of automated TIL evaluation by studying the root cause of ML discordances in comparison to manual TIL quantification. We categorize our findings into four main topics: (1) technical slide issues, (2) ML and image analysis aspects, (3) data challenges, and (4) validation issues. The main reason for discordant assessments is the inclusion of false‐positive areas or cells identified by performance on certain tissue patterns or design choices in the computational implementation. To aid the adoption of ML for TIL assessment, we provide an in‐depth discussion of ML and image analysis, including validation issues that need to be considered before reliable computational reporting of TILs can be incorporated into the trial and routine clinical management of patients with triple‐negative breast cancer. © 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Abstract Despite the well-established role of recurrent gene fusions as oncogenic drivers, current practices for characterizing and interpreting gene fusion events in clinical testing and in biomedical literature are inconsistent. From the conceptual definition of gene fusions to the salient elements that characterize these alterations, a lack of community-driven standards for the curation of gene fusions has resulted in a disparate landscape of fusion representations and supporting tools. Consequently, the evidence-based clinical evaluation of gene fusions requires extensive expert review for accurate interpretation of observed gene fusions with respect to putative evidence from biomedical literature. Furthermore, the lack of these standards inhibits the interoperability of tools, resources, and pipelines - impeding data sharing and downstream utility.To address these challenges, a cross-consortia initiative between the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium and ClinGen was formed to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the curation of gene fusions. The SOP is under development by an international and diverse set of experts in the representation, detection, and clinical interpretation of gene fusions. Participating stakeholders across academic, government, and industry sectors showcased challenges and solutions, and participated in community surveys and discussions to define and develop the SOP for this diverse class of alterations.An initial result of this effort was the precise molecular definition of genomic events and features constituting gene fusions. We distinguish these from similar but distinct classes of structural alterations through clinically-relevant examples. Next, we discuss our findings on community practices around the description and evaluation of gene fusions. We provide our recommendations for characterization and representation of gene fusions from these practices, and compare these recommendations to existing variant representation standards and formats (e.g. HGVS variant nomenclature). We also discuss the concurrent application of formats for standardized human- and machine-readable representations of gene fusion events.We conclude with discussion of the salient elements to enable rapid, scalable, and consistent evaluation of fusions curated from the biomedical literature. Recommendations are provided for the standardized capture of these elements to enable both intuitive and precise characterization of this diverse class of alterations in clinical reporting and literature. In summary, we provide a clinical-practice driven framework and nomenclature for gene fusions, including recommendations for human readability, computational precision, and data integrity within the SOP. This work is a substantial advancement towards standardized communication, investigation, and sharing of gene fusion data across clinical and research domains and specialties. Citation Format: Alex H. Wagner, Ioannis S. Vlachos, Dmitriy Sonkin, Panieh Terraf, Chimene Kesserwan, Andrea Sboner, Thomas Coard, Christian Reich, Deborah I. Ritter, Peter Horak, Ying S. Zou, Anna Tanska, Aaron M. Berlin, Anna Lu, Daniel Cameron, Heather E. Williams, Wan-Hsin Lin, Gokce Toruner, Arpad Danos, Jason Saliba, Huiling Xu, Xinjie Xu, Georgina Ryland, Michele Ceccarelli, Liying Zhang, Sarah Rapisardo, Catherine Rehder, Xuelu Liu, Aparna Pallavajjala, Nicole Park, Laveniya Satgunaseelan, Kristy Lee, Jie Liu, Obi Griffith, Robert R. Freimuth, Albrecht Stenzinger, Linda B. Baughn, Michael Baudis, Jennifer Lee, Marilyn Li, Angshumoy Roy, Gordana Raca. A standard operating procedure for the curation of gene fusions [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 449.

Abstract Tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of interrogated genomic sequence, varies across malignancies. Panel sequencing–based estimates of TMB have largely replaced whole-exome sequencing–derived TMB in the clinic. Retrospective evidence suggests that TMB can predict the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and data from KEYNOTE-158 led to the recent FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the TMB-high tumor subgroup. Unmet needs include prospective validation of TMB cutoffs in relationship to tumor type and patient outcomes. Furthermore, standardization and harmonization of TMB measurement across test platforms are important to the successful implementation of TMB in clinical practice. Significance: Evaluation of TMB as a predictive biomarker creates the need to harmonize panel-based TMB estimation and standardize its reporting. TMB can improve the predictive accuracy for immunotherapy outcomes, and has the potential to expand the candidate pool of patients for treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Background and Aims Lifetime risk of biliary tract cancer (BTC) in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) may exceed 20%, and BTC is currently the leading cause of death in patients with PSC. To open new avenues for management, we aimed to delineate clinically relevant genomic and pathological features of a large panel of PSC‐associated BTC (PSC‐BTC). Approach and Results We analyzed formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tumor tissue from 186 patients with PSC‐BTC from 11 centers in eight countries with all anatomical locations included. We performed tumor DNA sequencing at 42 clinically relevant genetic loci to detect mutations, translocations, and copy number variations, along with histomorphological and immunohistochemical characterization. Regardless of the anatomical localization, PSC‐BTC exhibited a uniform molecular and histological characteristic similar to extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. We detected a high frequency of genomic alterations typical of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, such as TP53 (35.5%), KRAS (28.0%), CDKN2A (14.5%), and SMAD4 (11.3%), as well as potentially druggable mutations (e.g., HER2/ERBB2). We found a high frequency of nontypical/nonductal histomorphological subtypes (55.2%) and of the usually rare BTC precursor lesion, intraductal papillary neoplasia (18.3%). Conclusions Genomic alterations in PSC‐BTC include a significant number of putative actionable therapeutic targets. Notably, PSC‐BTC shows a distinct extrahepatic morpho‐molecular phenotype, independent of the anatomical location of the tumor. These findings advance our understanding of PSC‐associated cholangiocarcinogenesis and provide strong incentives for clinical trials to test genome‐based personalized treatment strategies in PSC‐BTC.