| 1. |
- Kerr, Keith M, et al.
(författare)
-
Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Immunohistochemistry in Lung Cancer : In what state is this art?
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Thoracic Oncology. - 1556-0864 .- 1556-1380. ; 10:7, s. 985-989
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Therapeutic antibodies to programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 show promising clinical results. Anti-PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) may be a biomarker to select patients more likely to respond to these treatments. However, the development of at least four different therapeutics, each with a different anti-PD-L1 IHC assay, has raised concerns among pathologists and oncologists alike. This article reviews existing data on the IHC biomarker aspects of studies using these drugs in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and considers the challenges ahead, should these drug/IHC assay combinations reach routine practice. For each the known biomarker assays in development, there is a different monoclonal IHC antibody clone, produced by one of two diagnostics companies. Each test requires proprietary staining platforms and uses different definitions of a "positive" test for PD-L1 expression, on tumor cells and, in one test, also on tumor infiltrating immune cells. There are still considerable gaps in our knowledge of the technical aspects of these tests, and of the biological implications and associations of PD-L1 expression in NSCLC, considering heterogeneity of expression, dynamic changes in expression, and prognostic implications among other factors. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee raises the prospect of trying not only to harmonize and standardize testing for PD-L1 by IHC, at least at a technical level, but also, ideally, as a predictive marker, to facilitate availability of this test and a promising treatment for patients with NSCLC.
|
|
| 2. |
- Nicholson, Andrew G., et al.
(författare)
-
Interobserver Variation among Pathologists and Refinement of Criteria in Distinguishing Separate Primary Tumors from Intrapulmonary Metastases in Lung
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Thoracic Oncology. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 1556-0864 .- 1556-1380. ; 13:2, s. 205-217
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Multiple tumor nodules are seen with increasing frequency in clinical practice. On the basis of the 2015 WHO classification of lung tumors, we assessed the reproducibility of the comprehensive histologic assessment to distinguish second primary lung cancers (SPLCs) from intrapulmonary metastases (IPMs), looking for the most distinctive histologic features. An international panel of lung pathologists reviewed a scanned sequential cohort of 126 tumors from 48 patients and recorded an agreed set of histologic features, including tumor typing and predominant pattern of adenocarcinoma, thereby opining whether the case was SPLC, IPM, or a combination thereof. Cohen kappa statistics of 0.60 on overall assessment of SPLC or IPM indicated a good agreement. Likewise, there was good agreement (kappa score 0.64, p < 0.0001) between WHO histologic pattern in individual cases and SPLC or IPM status, but the proportions diversified for histologic pattern and SPLC or IPM status (McNemar test, p < 0.0001). The strongest associations for distinguishing between SPLC and IPM were observed for nuclear pleomorphism, cell size, acinus formation, nucleolar size, mitotic rate, nuclear inclusions, intraalveolar clusters, and necrosis. Conversely, the associations for lymphocytosis, mucin content, lepidic growth, vascular invasion, macrophage response, clear cell change, acute inflammation keratinization, and emperipolesis did not reach significance with tumor extent. Comprehensive histologic assessment is recommended for distinguishing SPLC from IPM with good reproducibility among lung pathologists. In addition to main histologic type and predominant patterns of histologic subtypes, nuclear pleomorphism, cell size, acinus formation, nucleolar size, and mitotic rate strongly correlate with pathologic staging status.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Porot, Laurent, et al.
(författare)
-
Bituminous binder
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Testing and Characterization of Sustainable Innovative Bituminous Materials and Systems. - Cham : Springer Netherlands. ; , s. 15-74
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- One of the most important aspects of asphalt pavement deterioration is the ingress of water in pavement which leads to loss of the material characteristics, even material integrity with loss of aggregates. Thus the behaviour of asphalt mixture under moisture conditions is one of the key parameter for specifications. It’s a complex phenomenon which is influenced amongst other things by materials properties with wetting, cohesion and adhesion of bituminous binder and by environmental conditions with temperature, moisture, loading and layer type. It has been a research subject for a very long time and still not precisely described. A large number of test methods is available to estimate the affinity between aggregates and bituminous binders. These test methods can be subdivided in different ways; a first distinction can be based on the presence or absence of water during the test procedure. If water is present, the evaluation is in fact referred to as water sensitivity or moisture damage testing. Another distinction can be based on the type of sample that is evaluated. The test sample can be loose aggregates coated with a bituminous binder or a compacted asphalt mix sample. Lastly the individual components, bitumen and aggregate, can be tested separately through intrinsic properties. Furthermore, test results can also be based on the quantification of the test results, whether this is based on a qualitative or a quantitative evaluation. In RILEM TC 237 SIB, TG1 the main purpose was to evaluate common test methods, used to assess the affinity of bitumen to aggregate surfaces, to determine, if possible, the repeatability and reproducibility and to give recommendations for improvement. In this study both binders and aggregates have been considered. Three bituminous binders, two unmodified from different sources, one polymer modified binder, and four aggregate types, with different mineralogy, have been selected. The test methods considered in the study include the rolling bottle test, the boiling water stripping test and the bitumen bond strength test; also surface energy was investigated. This chapter presents the results of these tests and their accuracy.
|
|
| 5. |
- Tsao, Ming Sound, et al.
(författare)
-
PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Comparability Study in Real-Life Clinical Samples : Results of Blueprint Phase 2 Project
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Thoracic Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1556-0864 .- 1556-1380. ; 13:9, s. 1302-1311
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The Blueprint (BP) Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) Immunohistochemistry Comparability Project is a pivotal academic/professional society and industrial collaboration to assess the feasibility of harmonizing the clinical use of five independently developed commercial PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays. The goal of BP phase 2 (BP2) was to validate the results obtained in BP phase 1 by using real-world clinical lung cancer samples.Methods: BP2 were conducted using 81 lung cancer specimens of various histological and sample types, stained with all five trial-validated PD-L1 assays (22C3, 28-8, SP142, SP263, and 73-10); the slides were evaluated by an international panel of pathologists. BP2 also assessed the reliability of PD-L1 scoring by using digital images, and samples prepared for cytological examination. PD-L1 expression was assessed for percentage (tumor proportional score) of tumor cell (TC) and immune cell areas showing PD-L1 staining, with TCs scored continuously or categorically with the cutoffs used in checkpoint inhibitor trials.Results: The BP2 results showed highly comparable staining by the 22C3, 28-8 and SP263 assays; less sensitivity with the SP142 assay; and higher sensitivity with the 73-10 assay to detect PD-L1 expression on TCs. Glass slide and digital image scorings were highly concordant (Pearson correlation >0.96). There was very strong reliability among pathologists in TC PD-L1 scoring with all assays (overall intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.86–0.93), poor reliability in IC PD-L1 scoring (overall ICC = 0.18–0.19), and good agreement in assessing PD-L1 status on cytological cell block materials (ICC = 0.78–0.85).Conclusion: BP2 consolidates the analytical evidence for interchangeability of the 22C3, 28-8, and SP263 assays and lower sensitivity of the SP142 assay for determining tumor proportion score on TCs and demonstrates greater sensitivity of the 73-10 assay compared with that of the other assays.
|
|
| 6. |
- Yatabe, Yasushi, et al.
(författare)
-
Best Practices Recommendations for Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry in Lung Cancer
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Thoracic Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1556-0864 .- 1556-1380. ; 14:3, s. 377-407
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since the 2015 WHO classification was introduced into clinical practice, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has figured prominently in lung cancer diagnosis. In addition to distinction of small cell versus non-small cell carcinoma, patients' treatment of choice is directly linked to histologic subtypes of non-small cell carcinoma, which pertains to IHC results, particularly for poorly differentiated tumors. The use of IHC has improved diagnostic accuracy in the classification of lung carcinoma, but the interpretation of IHC results remains challenging in some instances. Also, pathologists must be aware of many interpretation pitfalls, and the use of IHC should be efficient to spare the tissue for molecular testing. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee received questions on practical application and interpretation of IHC in lung cancer diagnosis. After discussions in several International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Pathology Committee meetings, the issues and caveats were summarized in terms of 11 key questions covering common and important diagnostic situations in a daily clinical practice with some relevant challenging queries. The questions cover topics such as the best IHC markers for distinguishing NSCLC subtypes, differences in thyroid transcription factor 1 clones, and the utility of IHC in diagnosing uncommon subtypes of lung cancer and distinguishing primary from metastatic tumors. This article provides answers and explanations for the key questions about the use of IHC in diagnosis of lung carcinoma, representing viewpoints of experts in thoracic pathology that should assist the community in the appropriate use of IHC in diagnostic pathology.
|
|
