ALK-FISH borderline cases in non-small cell lung cancer: Implications for diagnostics and clinical decision making
Introduction
About 2–7% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harbor anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements [1], [2], [3] that respond to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) [4], [5], [6]. Patient selection in the clinical trials that lead to therapy approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August 2011 and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in October 2012 was based on fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) [5], [6], [7]. Therefore, FISH is regarded as the gold standard to discriminate between ALK-positivity and -negativity necessary for therapy decision.
A tumor cell is considered ALK-positive if split signals (SS) and/or single red signals (SRS) can be detected. SS/SRS are the consequence of a paracentric inversion or translocation in the ALK-gene (chromosome 2) leading to a fusion with the EML4-gene (majority of cases) or with other partners such as KIF5B, TFG and KLC1 [1], [2], [8]. As a result the two adjacent ALK-gene regions covered by two different fluorescent labeled probes rearrange (break), leading to a separation of the two fluorescence dyes (cut-off for a SS: ≥2signal diameters). The wild-type situation (ALK-negative) is indicated by a fused signal (FS), showing (almost) no distance between the two probes. Diagnostic recommendations propose to evaluate 50 tumor cell nuclei and that unequivocal cases (SS/SRS in 5–25 cells) should be evaluated by a second observer. A tumor is considered positive if the (average) SS/SRS rate of the (first and second) cell count reading is at least 15% [8], [9]. Most papers refer to this 15% cut-off for ALK-FISH-positivity [8], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Furthermore, this cut-off is based on the observation that up to 11% of SS may be found in ALK-negative tumors and even in normal lung tissue (technical artifact) [13], [15], [16], [17]. Still, NSCLC diagnosis is mainly performed on small biopsy specimens. These may not contain a sufficient number of tumor cells to always ensure these guidelines can be followed (e.g., less than 50 tumor cells).
The benefit of an ALK-TKI is independent of the total percentage of ALK-altered tumor cells as long as the tumor is “truly” ALK-positive [16]. However, Camidge at al. described that ∼8.5% of NSCLCs show SS between 10% and 15% [18]. This seems highly important as ALK-positive samples (RT-PCR-proven) with SS close to the cut-off are at risk of ALK-FISH-misclassification (borderline group) [19], [20].
To this end we analyzed 753 NSCLCs using ALK-FISH. To investigate the frequency of ALK-borderline cases we put a special focus on samples with ALK-positive tumor cells around the 15% cut-off and performed a correlation with ALK-immunohistochemistry (IHC). Additionally, we systematically evaluated and quantified statistical sampling effects of ALK-FISH-testing in the context of the number of evaluated tumor cells to demonstrate the probabilities of false negative and positive ALK-FISH-classifications.
Section snippets
NSCLC samples
Representative tumor areas of 753 NSCLC resections [499 adenocarcinomas (ADC), 214 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), 15 large cell carcinomas (LCC), 15 non-small cell lung cancers not otherwise specified (NOS) and 10 adenosquamous carcinomas (ADSC)], collected between 2000 and 2014, were identified and 13 tissue microarrays (TMA) were constructed using two cores for each case (one mm diameter per core). Further details of this cohort with clinicopathological data of 473 samples were already
ALK-FISH of 753 NSCLC and correlation with IHC
Unequivocal ALK-FISH classification was possible in 94.3% (710/753) of the cases with an ALK-FISH-negative status in 93% (700/753) and a positive status in 1.3% (10/753). All of these samples showed SS/SRS in <10% or clearly above 20%. All 710 cases showed concordant negative or positive ALK-IHC results (Table 1). The 700 ALK-FISH negative NSCLC comprised 453 ADC, 208 SCC, 15 LCC, 15 NOS and 9 ADSC. The 10 unequivocal ALK-FISH positive samples were all pure ADC (Table 2). The ALK-FISH pattern
Discussion
We performed ALK-FISH in 753 NSCLC. While the majority of cases could be reliably classified as ALK-positive or negative (unequivocally), 5.7% of the samples showed SS/SRS in a range +/−5% points around the established 15% cut-off value. Our statistical analysis demonstrated that these samples are at risk of misclassification by sampling effects and should be regarded with caution. This might explain the conflicting IHC/FISH results in this range.
In agreement with previous studies [3], [13],
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Erika Berg, Stefanie Mende and Hedwig Lammert for their excellent technical assistance. Part of this work was supported by PFIZER within the framework of the FALKE project (detection of ALK-rearrangements by FISH in NSCLC).
References (40)
- et al.
ALK gene rearrangements: a new therapeutic target in a molecularly defined subset of non-small cell lung cancer
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2009) - et al.
Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysis
Lancet Oncol.
(2011) - et al.
The biology and treatment of EML4-ALK non-small cell lung cancer
Eur. J. Cancer
(2010) - et al.
Bright-field dual-color chromogenic in situ hybridization for diagnosing echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive lung adenocarcinomas
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2011) - et al.
Dual IHC and FISH testing for ALK gene rearrangement in lung adenocarcinomas in a routine practice: a French study
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2012) - et al.
Correlation of IHC and FISH for ALK gene rearrangement in non-small cell lung carcinoma: IHC score algorithm for FISH
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2011) - et al.
Multicenter immunohistochemical ALK-Testing of non-small-cell lung cancer shows high concordance after harmonization of techniques and interpretation criteria
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2014) - et al.
New methods for ALK status diagnosis in non-small-cell lung cancer: an improved ALK immunohistochemical assay and a new Brightfield, dual ALK IHC-in situ hybridization assay
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2013) - et al.
Increased ALK gene copy number and amplification are frequent in non-small cell lung cancer
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2011) - et al.
Multicenter ALK testing in non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a round robin test
J. Thorac. Oncol.
(2014)
Automation of ALK gene rearrangement testing with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): a feasibility study
Exp. Mol. Pathol.
Finding ALK-positive lung cancer: what are we really looking for?
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Discrepancies between FISH and immunohistochemistry for assessment of the ALK status are associated with ALK ‘borderline’-positive rearrangements or a high copy number: a potential major issue for anti-ALK therapeutic strategies
Ann. Oncol.
Parallel FISH, and immunohistochemical studies of ALK status in 3244 non-small-cell lung cancers reveal major discordances
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Next-generation sequencing identifies and immunohistochemistry confirms a novel crizotinib-sensitive ALK rearrangemnet in a patient with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Atypical negative ALK break-apart FISH harboring a crizotinib-responsive ALK rearrangement in non-small-cell lung cancer
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Reply to the letter to the editor ALK FISH rearranged and amplified tumor with negative immunohistochemistry: a rare and challenging case concerning ALK status screening in lung cancer by Uguen et al
Ann. Oncol.
Screening for ALK in non-small cell lung carcinomas: 5A4 and D5F3 antibodies perform equally well, but combined use with FISH is recommended
Lung Cancer
Combined use of ALK immunohistochemistry and FISH for optimal detection of ALK-rearranged lung adenocarcinomas
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Heterogeneity of anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene rearrangement in non-small-cell lung carcinomas: a comparative study between small biopsy and excision samples
J. Thorac. Oncol.
Cited by (41)
“SMART” digital nucleic acid amplification technologies for lung cancer monitoring from early to advanced stages
2022, TrAC - Trends in Analytical ChemistryCitation Excerpt :Traditionally, FISH is the gold standard for detecting DNA rearrangement/fusion [187], such as ALK, HER2, RET, ROS1 and NTRK. However, the uncertain evaluation criteria, signal instability and subjectivity of the observer lead to relatively low sensitivity of FISH, which can detect those rearrangements/fusions to LOD of ca. 15% [188]. In recent years, dPCR technology has been successfully used to detect DNA rearrangements/fusion.
Diagnostic Utility of Gene Fusion Panel to Detect Gene Fusions in Fresh and Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Cancer Specimens
2021, Journal of Molecular DiagnosticsDetermination of COL1A1–PDGFB breakpoints by next-generation sequencing in the molecular diagnosis of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans
2021, Experimental and Molecular PathologyALK immunohistochemistry positive, FISH negative NSCLC is infrequent, but associated with impaired survival following treatment with crizotinib
2019, Lung CancerCitation Excerpt :In most cases not enough tumor material was available for further analysis. Explanations for ALK IHC + FISH- include (1) false-negative interpretation of FISH results, especially for results that are close to the threshold of 15% sections [32]; (2) counting in FISH normal cells as tumor cells; (3) double rearrangement involving ALK, reducing the visible distance of the two FISH probes [33]; (4) amplification of the ALK gene (which has been associated with ALK protein expression in some but not all cases), possibly leading to 1+ or 2+ staining [34,35]; (5) false-positive IHC staining with less specific antibodies (e.g. 1A4 [36]) (6) false positive interpretation of ALK IHC results due to high signal enhancement [37]; (7) Infrequently, ALK IHC may be positive in high grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of e.g. lung [38–40] and Merkel cell carcinomas [IASLC atlas [31] chapter 4] and (8) an indeterminate mechanism. The central validation of the assays revealed surprising discordances with local testing in a small number of cases with respect to false positive IHC and false negative FISH.
Clinical, pathological, and genomic features of EWSR1-PATZ1 fusion sarcoma
2019, Modern Pathology