Elsevier

Lung Cancer

Volume 90, Issue 3, December 2015, Pages 465-471
Lung Cancer

ALK-FISH borderline cases in non-small cell lung cancer: Implications for diagnostics and clinical decision making

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.09.022Get rights and content

Highlights

  • TMAs of 753 NSCLCs were tested for ALK-alterations by FISH and IHC.

  • 5.7% showed alterations between 10% and 20% (ALK-FISH borderline group).

  • Partly these samples showed conflicting IHC results.

  • Based on a sharp cut-off point (15%), ALK-FISH misclassifications occur frequently.

  • Based on a borderline interval, ALK-FISH misclassifications can be reduced clearly.

Abstract

Background

Fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of ALK-rearrangements in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is based on at first sight clear cut-off criteria (≥15% of tumor cells) for split signals (SS) and single red signals (SRS). However, NSCLC with SS-counts around the cut-off may cause interpretation problems.

Material and methods

Tissue microarrays containing 753 surgically resected NSCLCs were independently tested for ALK-alterations by FISH and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Our analysis focused on samples with SS/SRS in the range between 10% and 20% (ALK-FISH borderline group). To better understand the role of these samples in routine diagnostics, we performed statistical analyses to systematically estimate the probability of ALK-FISH-misclassification (false negative or positive) for different numbers of evaluated tumor cell nuclei (30, 50, 100, and 200).

Results

94.3% (710/753) of the cases were classified as unequivocally (<10% or ≥20%) ALK-FISH-negative (93%; 700/753) or positive (1.3%; 10/753) and showed concordant IHC results.

5.7% (43/753) of the samples showed SS/SRS between 10% and 20% of the tumor cells. Out of these, 7% (3/43; ALK-FISH: 14%, 18% and 20%) were positive by ALK-IHC, while 93% (40/43) had no detectable expression of the ALK-protein.

Statistical analysis showed that ALK-FISH misclassifications occur frequently for samples with rearrangements between 10% and 20% if ALK-characterization is based on a sharp cut-off point (15%). If results in this interval are defined as equivocal (borderline), statistical sampling-related ALK-FISH misclassifications will occur in less than 1% of the cases if 100 tumor cells are evaluated.

Conclusion

While ALK status can be determined robustly for the majority of NSCLC by FISH our analysis showed that ∼6% of the cases belong to a borderline group for which ALK-FISH evaluation has only limited reliability due to statistical sampling effects. These cases should be considered equivocal and therapy decisions should include additional tests and clinical considerations.

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)

  • K. Zwaenepoel et al.

    Automation of ALK gene rearrangement testing with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): a feasibility study

    Exp. Mol. Pathol.

    (2015)
  • D.R. Camidge et al.

    Finding ALK-positive lung cancer: what are we really looking for?

    J. Thorac. Oncol.

    (2011)
  • M.I. Ilie et al.

    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.

    (2015)
  • F. Cabillic et al.

    Parallel FISH, and immunohistochemical studies of ALK status in 3244 non-small-cell lung cancers reveal major discordances

    J. Thorac. Oncol.

    (2014)
  • N. Peled et al.

    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.

    (2012)
  • S. Ren et al.

    Atypical negative ALK break-apart FISH harboring a crizotinib-responsive ALK rearrangement in non-small-cell lung cancer

    J. Thorac. Oncol.

    (2014)
  • M. Ilie et al.

    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.

    (2015)
  • S. Savic et al.

    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

    (2015)
  • L.M. Sholl et al.

    Combined use of ALK immunohistochemistry and FISH for optimal detection of ALK-rearranged lung adenocarcinomas

    J. Thorac. Oncol.

    (2013)
  • H. Abe et al.

    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.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text