Search

Introduction: In recent years, there has been a growing development of molecularly targeted therapies for various types of solid tumors—in particular, in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This has required the need for greater quantities of tissue that is able to support ancillary studies, alongside cyto-histological diagnoses for the assessment of molecular targets. Conventional TBNA (cTBNA) and EBUS-guided TBNA (EBUS-TBNA) have shown a high diagnostic yield for malignant mediastinal and/or hilar lymph node enlargement and peribronchial masses; however, few studies have compared these two procedures. We retrospectively compared TBNA patients (EBUS-TBNA and cTBNA) in order to determine the diagnostic yield and material adequacy for subsequent ancillary analyses. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 318 patients with clinical suspicion of lung cancer or with disease recurrence. All of the patients underwent TBNA (either EBUS-TBNA or cTBNA) on enlarged mediastinal and/or hilar lymph nodes and peribronchial masses between January 2017 and June 2021 at the University Hospital of Pisa, Italy. After a definitive diagnosis, molecular analyses and an evaluation of PD-L1 expression were performed in the cases of adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and NSCLC, not otherwise specified (NOS). Results: EBUS-TBNA was performed in 199 patients and cTBNA was performed in 119 patients with 374 and 142 lymph nodes, respectively. The overall diagnostic yield for positive diagnoses was 59% (diagnostic rate of 61% in EBUS-TBNA, and 55% in cTBNA). Adenocarcinoma (ADC) was the most frequent diagnosis in both methods. EBUS-TBNA diagnostic adequacy was 72% for molecular analysis, while it was 55.5% for cTBNA, showing a statistical trend (p = 0.08) towards the significance of EBUS. The average percentage of neoplastic cells was also statistically different between the two methods (p = 0.05), reaching 51.19 ± 22.14 in EBUS-TBNA and 45.25 ± 22.84 in cTBNA. With regard to the PD-L1 protein expression, the percentage of positivity was similar in both procedures (86% in EBUS-TBNA, 85% in cTBNA). Conclusions: Conventional TBNA (cTBNA) and EBUS-guided TBNA (EBUS-TBNA) are minimally invasive diagnostic methods that are associated with a high diagnostic yield. However, EBUS-TBNA has an improved diagnostic adequacy for molecular analysis compared to cTBNA, and is associated with a higher average percentage of neoplastic cells.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) comprises three main subtypes: epithelioid, biphasic and sarcomatoid, which have different impacts on prognosis and treatment definition. However, PM subtyping can be complex given the inter- and intra-tumour morphological heterogeneity. We aim to use immunohistochemistry (IHC) to evaluate five markers (Mesothelin, Claudin-15, Complement Factor B, Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor 1 and p21-activated Kinase 4), whose encoding genes have been previously reported as deregulated among PM subtypes. Immunohistochemical expressions were determined in a case series of 73 PMs, and cut-offs for the epithelioid and non-epithelioid subtypes were selected. Further validation was performed on an independent cohort (30 PMs). For biphasic PM, the percentage of the epithelioid component was assessed, and IHC evaluation was also performed on the individual components separately. Mesothelin and Claudin-15 showed good sensitivity (79% and 84%) and specificity (84% and 73%) for the epithelioid subtype. CFB and PAK4 had inferior performance, with higher sensitivity (89% and 84%) but lower specificity (64% and 36%). In the biphasic group, all markers showed different expression when comparing epithelioid with sarcomatoid areas. Mesothelin, Claudin-15 and CFB can be useful in subtype discrimination. PAI1 and PAK4 can improve component distinction in biphasic PM.

Resistance to EGFR tyrosin kinase inhibitors (TKI) inevitably occurs. Here it is reported the case of a young patient affected by lung adenocarcinoma harboring the L858R EGFR sensitive mutation. The patient developed multiple TKI resistance mechanisms: T790M EGFR resistance mutation, detected only on tumor cell-free DNA, squamous cell transformation and MET amplification, both detected on a tumor re-biopsy. The co-occurrence of squamous cell transformation and de novo MET amplification is an extremely rare event, and this case confirms how dynamic and heterogeneous can be the temporal and spatial tumor evolution under treatment pressure.

Biphasic is the second most common histotype of pleural mesothelioma (PM). It shares epithelioid and sarcomatoid features and is challenging to diagnose. The aim of this study was to identify biphasic PM markers to improve subtyping and prognosis definition. The expression levels of 117 cancer genes, evaluated using the nanoString system, were compared between the three major histotypes (epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic), and expression differences within biphasic PM were evaluated in relation to the percentage of epithelioid components. Biphasic PM overexpressed CTNNA1 and TIMP3 in comparison to sarcomatoid, and COL16A1 and SDC1 in comparison to epithelioid PM. CFB, MSLN, CLDN15, SERPINE1, and PAK4 were deregulated among all histotypes, leading to the hypothesis of a gradual expression from epithelioid to sarcomatoid PM. According to gene expression, biphasic PM samples were divided in two clusters with a significant difference in the epithelioid component. ADCY4, COL1A1, and COL4A2 were overexpressed in the biphasic group with a low percentage of epithelioid component. Survival analysis using TCGA data showed that high COL1A1 and COL4A2 expression levels correlate with poor survival in PM patients. Herein, we identified markers with the potential to improve diagnosis and prognostic stratification of biphasic PM, which is still an orphan tumor.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer, with most patients diagnosed at advanced stages. First-line treatment based on a combined chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel) provides limited benefits. Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, has been approved as maintenance for PDAC patients harboring germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations and previously treated with a platinum-based chemotherapy. BRCA1/2 germline testing is recommended, but also somatic mutations could predict responses to PARP inhibitors. Analysis of tumor tissues can detect both germline and somatic mutations and potential resistance alterations. Few data are available about BRCA1/2 testing on pancreatic tumor tissues, which often include limited biological material. We performed BRCA1/2 testing, by an amplicon-based Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) panel, on 37 consecutive PDAC clinical samples: 86.5% of cases were adequate for NGS analysis, with a success rate of 81.2% (median DNA input: 10 nanograms). Three BRCA2 mutations were detected (11.5%). Failed samples were all from tissue macrosections, which had higher fragmented DNA than standard sections, biopsies and fine-needle aspirations, likely due to fixation procedures. BRCA1/2 testing on pancreatic tumor tissues can also be feasible on small biopsies, but more cases must be analyzed to define its role and value in the PDAC diagnostic algorithm.

Gene fusions have a pivotal role in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) precision medicine. Several techniques can be used, from fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry to next generation sequencing (NGS). Although several NGS panels are available, gene fusion testing presents more technical challenges than other variants. This is a PubMed-based narrative review aiming to summarize NGS approaches for gene fusion analysis and their performance on NSCLC clinical samples. The analysis can be performed at DNA or RNA levels, using different target enrichment (hybrid-capture or amplicon-based) and sequencing chemistries, with both custom and commercially available panels. DNA sequencing evaluates different alteration types simultaneously, but large introns and repetitive sequences can impact on the performance and it does not discriminate between expressed and unexpressed gene fusions. RNA-based targeted approach analyses and quantifies directly fusion transcripts and is more accurate than DNA panels on tumor tissue, but it can be limited by RNA quality and quantity. On liquid biopsy, satisfying data have been published on circulating tumor DNA hybrid-capture panels. There is not a perfect method for gene fusion analysis, but NGS approaches, though still needing a complete standardization and optimization, present several advantages for the clinical practice.