Reis-Filho, Jorge S

Mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (MDLC) is a rare histologic subtype of breast cancer displaying both E-cadherin positive ductal and E-cadherin negative lobular morphologies within the same tumor, posing challenges with regard to anticipated clinical management. It remains unclear whether these distinct morphologies also have distinct biology and risk of recurrence. Our spatially resolved transcriptomic, genomic, and single-cell profiling revealed clinically significant differences between ductal and lobular tumor regions including distinct intrinsic subtype heterogeneity – e.g., MDLC with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or basal ductal and estrogen receptor positive (ER+) luminal lobular regions, distinct enrichment of cell cycle arrest/senescence and oncogenic (ER and MYC ) signatures, genetic and epigenetic CDH1 inactivation in lobular but not ductal regions, and single-cell ductal and lobular subpopulations with unique oncogenic signatures further highlighting intraregional heterogeneity. Altogether, we demonstrated that the intratumoral morphological/histological heterogeneity within MDLC is underpinned by intrinsic subtype and oncogenic heterogeneity which may result in prognostic uncertainty and therapeutic dilemma.

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 Purpose: Clinical trials reported 25% to 30% pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in HER2+ patients with breast cancer treated with anti-HER2 therapies without chemotherapy. We hypothesize that a multiparameter classifier can identify patients with HER2-“addicted” tumors who may benefit from a chemotherapy-sparing strategy. Experimental Design: Baseline HER2+ breast cancer specimens from the TBCRC023 and PAMELA trials, which included neoadjuvant treatment with lapatinib and trastuzumab, were used. In the case of estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) tumors, endocrine therapy was also administered. HER2 protein and gene amplification (ratio), HER2-enriched (HER2-E), and PIK3CA mutation status were assessed by dual gene protein assay (GPA), research-based PAM50, and targeted DNA-sequencing. GPA cutoffs and classifier of response were constructed in TBCRC023 using a decision tree algorithm, then validated in PAMELA. Results: In TBCRC023, 72 breast cancer specimens had GPA, PAM50, and sequencing data, of which 15 had pCR. Recursive partitioning identified cutoffs of HER2 ratio ≥ 4.6 and %3+ IHC staining ≥ 97.5%. With PAM50 and sequencing data, the model added HER2-E and PIK3CA wild-type (WT). For clinical implementation, the classifier was locked as HER2 ratio ≥ 4.5, %3+ IHC staining ≥ 90%, and PIK3CA-WT and HER2-E, yielding 55% and 94% positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, respectively. Independent validation using 44 PAMELA cases with all three biomarkers yielded 47% PPV and 82% NPV. Importantly, our classifier's high NPV signifies its strength in accurately identifying patients who may not be good candidates for treatment deescalation. Conclusions: Our multiparameter classifier differentially identifies patients who may benefit from HER2-targeted therapy alone from those who need chemotherapy and predicts pCR to anti-HER2 therapy alone comparable with chemotherapy plus dual anti-HER2 therapy in unselected patients.