Ko, Jennifer

AbstractCIC rearranged sarcomas have significant overlap with Ewing sarcoma, are aggressive, and typically present in deep soft tissue. They most commonly have a t(4;19)(q35;q13) with CIC‐DUX4 fusion. Superficial presentation is rare. We report eight (6F, 2M; median 45‐years‐old, range 14‐65) superficial CIC‐rearranged sarcomas, involving the extremities (n = 4), vulva (n = 2), and trunk (n = 2). The tumors were composed of nodules/sheets of round cells with necrosis and hemorrhage separated by dense hyaline bands. Tumor cells had vesicular chromatin, prominent nucleoli and frequent mitotic figures. One showed pagetoid spread. Targeted next‐generation sequencing was positive for CIC‐DUX4 fusion (6/6); fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was positive for CIC rearrangement (2/3). Eight of eight had evidence of CIC‐DUX4 fusion/rearrangement by molecular techniques. Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD99+ (8/8) and DUX4+ (4/4). FISH for EWSR1 rearrangement was negative (5/5). Of five patients with at least 6 months follow‐up, three of five died of disease, all within 2 years of presentation. One is alive with disease at 48 months. One is disease free at 3 months. Superficial CIC‐rearranged sarcomas should be considered in cases exhibiting features reminiscent of Ewing sarcoma, but with increased pleomorphism and/or geographic necrosis. In contrast to superficial Ewing sarcomas, superficial CIC‐rearranged sarcomas are aggressive.

Abstract Purpose: PD-1/L1 axis–directed therapies produce clinical responses in a subset of patients; therefore, biomarkers of response are needed. We hypothesized that quantifying key immunosuppression mechanisms within the tumor microenvironment by multiparameter algorithms would identify strong predictors of anti–PD-1 response. Experimental Design: Pretreatment tumor biopsies from 166 patients treated with anti–PD-1 across 10 academic cancer centers were fluorescently stained with multiple markers in discovery (n = 24) and validation (n = 142) cohorts. Biomarker-positive cells and their colocalization were spatially profiled in pathologist-selected tumor regions using novel Automated Quantitative Analysis algorithms. Selected biomarker signatures, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction score, and IDO-1/HLA-DR coexpression were evaluated for anti–PD-1 treatment outcomes. Results: In the discovery cohort, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction score and/or IDO-1/HLA-DR coexpression was strongly associated with anti–PD-1 response (P = 0.0005). In contrast, individual biomarkers (PD-1, PD-L1, IDO-1, HLA-DR) were not associated with response or survival. This finding was replicated in an independent validation cohort: patients with high PD-1/PD-L1 and/or IDO-1/HLA-DR were more likely to respond (P = 0.0096). These patients also experienced significantly improved progression-free survival (HR = 0.36; P = 0.0004) and overall survival (HR = 0.39; P = 0.0011). In the combined cohort, 80% of patients exhibiting higher levels of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction scores and IDO-1/HLA-DR responded to PD-1 blockers (P = 0.000004). In contrast, PD-L1 expression was not predictive of survival. Conclusions: Quantitative spatial profiling of key tumor-immune suppression pathways by novel digital pathology algorithms could help more reliably select melanoma patients for PD-1 monotherapy. Clin Cancer Res; 24(21); 5250–60. ©2018 AACR.