Virtual Library
Start Your Search
M.Z. Knight
Author of
-
+
ORAL 37 - Novel Targets (ID 146)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Oral Session
- Track: Biology, Pathology, and Molecular Testing
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:S.S. Ramalingam, E. Thunnissen
- Coordinates: 9/09/2015, 16:45 - 18:15, Mile High Ballroom 4a-4f
-
+
ORAL37.07 - Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium Pathologist Panel Evaluation of MET Protein (ID 2129)
17:50 - 18:01 | Author(s): M.Z. Knight
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
MET is a receptor tyrosine kinase with frequently activated signaling in lung cancers. Multiple studies indicate that MET overexpression correlates with poor clinical prognosis. Tumors with MET amplification and overexpression may respond better to MET inhibitors than tumors with low expression. The prevalence of MET overexpression in lung cancer cohorts has varied from 20%-80%, as has the proportion of patient’s testing positive for prospective clinical trials with entry based on MET overexpression. The Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) Pathologist Panel endeavored to standardize evaluation of MET protein expression with “Round Robin” conferences.
Methods:
508 FFPE non-small cell lung cancer specimens were stained by immunohistochemistry for MET protein expression (SP44 antibody, Ventana). Seven pathologists from LCMC sites with specialized training in MET scoring evaluated 78 Aperio-scanned images of MET-stained slides in two successive rounds of 39 different cases per round. The percentage of tumor cells with membranous and/or cytoplasmic staining at different intensities were evaluated with H-scores ranging from 0 to 300. Overall group and individual pathologist’s scores were compared with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Between rounds, a “Round Robin” teleconference was conducted to review discordant cases and improve consistency of scoring. Steps to improve scoring included: review of a Roche MET training document, sharing pictures of cases with concordant scores (Figure 1), and provision of H&E images for the second round to facilitate identification of tumor areas. Figure 1
Results:
The overall average MET H-score for the 78 cases was 165.3 (H-score range: 42.5-279.7). The average H-score was <125 for 14 specimens, 125-175 for 35 specimens, and >175 for 29 specimens. The overall group ICC comparing the consistency of H-scores from all 7 pathologists improved from 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.64, “fair” correlation) for the first scoring round to 0.74 (95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.83, “good” correlation) for the second round. A comparison of the individual pathologist’s ICCs demonstrated improved individual scoring consistency for all seven pathologists between rounds with an average of 0.64 (“moderate” correlation, range 0.43-0.76) for the first round and 0.82 (“almost perfect” correlation, range 0.75-0.93) for the second round.
Conclusion:
Development of standardized, reproducible strategies for evaluation of complex biomarkers, such as MET, are critical to clinical trial design. The consistency of scoring for MET protein expression and other biomarkers may be improved by continuous training and communication between pathologists with easy access to H&E images and other visual aids.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
