Rimm, David

Multiplex immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry (mIF/IHC) are increasingly employed antibody-based technologies that use tissue sparingly and facilitate the detection of co-localized or neighboring biomarkers. Specifically, these platforms enable spatial analyses of the tumor microenvironment as well as extended applications, for example, describing normal tissue anatomy, autoimmunity, infectious diseases, etc. mIF/IHC has greatly enhanced biomarker discovery efforts, and a growing number of studies suggest superiority to traditional IHC. Standardization of staining approaches, reporting of image analysis strategies and resultant data is critical for facilitating cross-study comparisons, validation, deployment, and generalization of findings. To address this challenge, The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) previously published two articles providing best practice guidelines for mIF/IHC staining, image analysis, and data sharing. Here, SITC convened stakeholders to develop the third article in the series, a consensus checklist for scientific reporting of mIF/IHC data to support and complement the best practice guidelines. The checklist includes critical components of mIF/IHC applications to be defined within publications such as detailed descriptions of analytical validation; image acquisition, selection, and registration methods; and cell clustering and spatial analysis strategies, amongst others. Such information will help with data reproducibility and comparison across studies towards future drug and assay development.

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.

AbstractImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapies targeting PD‐1/PD‐L1 are now the standard of care in oncology across several hematologic and solid tumor types, including triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients with metastatic or locally advanced TNBC with PD‐L1 expression on immune cells occupying ≥1% of tumor area demonstrated survival benefit with the addition of atezolizumab to nab‐paclitaxel. However, concerns regarding variability between immunohistochemical PD‐L1 assay performance and inter‐reader reproducibility have been raised. High tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have also been associated with response to PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in patients with breast cancer (BC). TILs can be easily assessed on hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides and have shown reliable inter‐reader reproducibility. As an established prognostic factor in early stage TNBC, TILs are soon anticipated to be reported in daily practice in many pathology laboratories worldwide. Because TILs and PD‐L1 are parts of an immunological spectrum in BC, we propose the systematic implementation of combined PD‐L1 and TIL analyses as a more comprehensive immuno‐oncological biomarker for patient selection for PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibition‐based therapy in patients with BC. Although practical and regulatory considerations differ by jurisdiction, the pathology community has the responsibility to patients to implement assays that lead to optimal patient selection. We propose herewith a risk‐management framework that may help mitigate the risks of suboptimal patient selection for immuno‐therapeutic approaches in clinical trials and daily practice based on combined TILs/PD‐L1 assessment in BC. © 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in histopathologic specimens can provide important prognostic information in diverse solid tumor types, and may also be of value in predicting response to treatments. However, implementation as a routine clinical biomarker has not yet been achieved. As successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and other forms of immunotherapy become a clinical reality, the need for widely applicable, accessible, and reliable immunooncology biomarkers is clear. In part 1 of this review we briefly discuss the host immune response to tumors and different approaches to TIL assessment. We propose a standardized methodology to assess TILs in solid tumors on hematoxylin and eosin sections, in both primary and metastatic settings, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines for TIL assessment in invasive breast carcinoma. A review of the literature regarding the value of TIL assessment in different solid tumor types follows in part 2. The method we propose is reproducible, affordable, easily applied, and has demonstrated prognostic and predictive significance in invasive breast carcinoma. This standardized methodology may be used as a reference against which other methods are compared, and should be evaluated for clinical validity and utility. Standardization of TIL assessment will help to improve consistency and reproducibility in this field, enrich both the quality and quantity of comparable evidence, and help to thoroughly evaluate the utility of TILs assessment in this era of immunotherapy.

Assessment of the immune response to tumors is growing in importance as the prognostic implications of this response are increasingly recognized, and as immunotherapies are evaluated and implemented in different tumor types. However, many different approaches can be used to assess and describe the immune response, which limits efforts at implementation as a routine clinical biomarker. In part 1 of this review, we have proposed a standardized methodology to assess tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in solid tumors, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group guidelines for invasive breast carcinoma. In part 2 of this review, we discuss the available evidence for the prognostic and predictive value of TILs in common solid tumors, including carcinomas of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary system, gynecologic system, and head and neck, as well as primary brain tumors, mesothelioma and melanoma. The particularities and different emphases in TIL assessment in different tumor types are discussed. The standardized methodology we propose can be adapted to different tumor types and may be used as a standard against which other approaches can be compared. Standardization of TIL assessment will help clinicians, researchers and pathologists to conclusively evaluate the utility of this simple biomarker in the current era of immunotherapy.

Abstract A group of investigators met at a Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Workshop to discuss key issues in the translation of biomarker discovery to the development of useful laboratory tests for cancer care. Development and approval of several new markers and technologies have provided informative examples that include more specific markers for prostate cancer, more sensitive tests for ovarian cancer, more objective analysis of tissue architecture and an earlier indication of response to treatment in breast cancer. Although there is no clear paradigm for biomarker development, several principles are clear. Marker development should be driven by clinical needs, including early cancer detection, accurate pretreatment staging, and prediction of response to treatment, as well as monitoring disease progression and response to therapy. Development of a national repository that uses carefully preserved, well-annotated tissue specimens will facilitate new marker development. Reference standards will be an essential component of this process. Both hospital-based and commercial laboratories can play a role in developing biomarkers from discovery to test validation. Partnering of academe and industry should occur throughout the process of biomarker development. The National Cancer Institute is in a unique position to bring together academe, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration to (a) define clinical needs for biomarkers by tumor type, (b) establish analytic and clinical paradigms for biomarker development, (c) discuss ways in which markers from different companies might be evaluated in combination, (d) establish computational methods to combine data from multiple biomarkers, (e) share information regarding promising markers developed in National Cancer Institute–supported programs, and (f) exchange data regarding new platforms and techniques that can accelerate marker development.