ARMS for EGFR mutation analysis of cytologic and corresponding lung adenocarcinoma histologic specimens

Transcription

1 DOI /s z Original Article Cancer Research ARMS for EGFR mutation analysis of cytologic and corresponding lung adenocarcinoma histologic specimens Jinguo Liu Ruiying Zhao Jie Zhang Jian Zhang Received: 31 May 2014 / Accepted: 15 August 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 Abstract Purpose Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation analysis is becoming a routine clinical practice for lung adenocarcinoma patients. Most patients with lung cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage of the disease and are not suitable for surgical therapy. In many cases, cytologic specimens may be the only tissue available for diagnostic and molecular testing. Therefore, it is important to determine what condition the cytologic specimens should be in for adequately analyzing EGFR mutation status. Methods Fifty-eight paired cytologic and lung adenocarcinoma histologic specimens that satisfied 3 requisite parameters (>2 ng/μl DNA concentration, >30 tumor cells content, and >25 % tumor percentage) were collected. Exons 18 through 21 of the EGFR gene were analyzed by amplification refractory mutations system. Results The EGFR mutation concordance rate between cytologic specimens and corresponding histologic specimens was 100 %. A set of 30 paired specimens from different sites (lung and pleural fluids) from the same patient exhibited 100 % concordance in the EGFR mutation analysis results. Conclusions In this study, EGFR mutation presented a convenient and reliable method for the analysis of cytologic specimens that satisfied 3 requisite parameters (>2 ng/μl DNA concentration, >30 tumor cells content, and >25 % tumor percentage). We concluded that the specimens from both primary lung adenocarcinomas and metastatic lesions (such as pleural fluids) can be used for EGFR mutation analysis. J. Liu R. Zhao J. Zhang (*) J. Zhang Department of Pathology, Shanghai Chest Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong university, No. 241 West Huaihai Road, Shanghai , China jiezhang1419@163.com Keywords Lung cancer Adenocarcinoma Cytology Surgical pathology Epidermal growth factor receptor Mutation analysis Introduction Lung cancer has the highest incidence and is the most frequent cause of mortality worldwide among major cancers (Boyle and Levin 2008). Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic subtype of lung cancer, accounting for almost half of all lung cancer cases (Curado et al. 2007). Because the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation is a validated predictive marker for response and overall survival time with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced lung adenocarcinoma, experts have recommend that patients with advanced adenocarcinomas be tested for the EGFR mutation. Approximately 70 % of advanced-stage lung cancers are diagnosed and staged using small biopsies or cytology (including fine-needle aspiration, pleural fluid, and bronchial washing or brushing specimens) rather than surgical resection specimens (Shah et al. 2006), which may be the only material available for EGFR mutation analysis. A recent review demonstrated that the most common types of cytologic specimens for assessing EGFR mutations were formalin-fixed, paraffinembedded cell blocks, archival smear slides and fresh cells (da Cunha Santos et al. 2011). Cytologic material can often only be obtained in small amounts via fine-needle aspiration and is not suitable to be made into cell blocks; however, smear slides are easily made, so cytologic material is always examined using smear slides. Therefore, it is important to determine what conditions are adequate for analysis of cytologic specimens to evaluate EGFR mutation status. Several studies have demonstrated the suitability of cytological specimens for detecting the EGFR mutation

2 (Tanaka et al. 2007; Malapelle et al. 2012; Bruno et al. 2011; Aisner et al. 2013). However, few of those studies have confirmed the optimal conditions for cytologic specimens, have compared cytologic specimens with histologic specimens from the same patient, and have compared the mutation status of primary tumors with metastatic lesions using cytologic specimens. In the current study, we compared 58 cytologic smears with formalin-fixed, paraffinembedded (FFPE) specimens, including biopsies and resections from lung adenocarcinomas, and determined which of these cytologic specimens were suitable for the molecular assessment of EGFR mutation status. The condition of each of the patients was also confirmed. Materials and methods Sample collection and processing This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our hospital. We retrospectively reviewed and assessed the EGFR mutation status of 58 surgically resected or biopsied primary or metastatic lung adenocarcinomas, confirmed by morphology and immunohistochemistry with available cytologic specimens collected at our hospital between October 2013 and March These specimens included 18 surgically resected lung tissues, 10 surgically resected regional lymph nodes and 30 biopsied lung tissues. The 58 cytologic archival smear slides from these 58 patients were examined, including 18 fine-needle aspirations of the lung, 10 fine-needle aspirations of regional lymph nodes and 30 pleural fluid samples. Cytomorphological evaluation of smears was conducted in all cases, confirming the diagnosis. Specimen selection for EGFR mutation testing All cytologic archival smear slides were independently reviewed by 2 pathologists. The slides were assessed for the number of tumor cells, and there were at least 30 tumor cells within each slide for selection. The tumor percentage was also calculated based on the number of tumor cells relative to all nucleated cells within each slide, and the lowest tumor percentage allowed for detection was 25 %. The histologic specimens were evaluated using the same method. DNA extraction and ARMS mutation analysis Genomic DNA was manually isolated using a QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit from FFPE sections and smear slides (Qiagen, Germany) according to the manufacturer s instructions. DNA was isolated by elution with 50 μl of Tris/Acetate/EDTA(TAE), and the genomic DNA was then quantified using Nano UV spectrophotometer. OD 260/280 values should be between 1.8 and 2.0. An ADx-ARMS EGFR mutation detection kit was used to analyze the DNA template, which was adjusted to a concentration of 2 ng/μl on a real-time PCR instrument (Stratagene Mx3005P) according to the manufacturer s instructions. The results were interpreted by an experienced technician. Both DNA extraction and ARMS method for EGFR analysis were previously validated in our laboratory. Positive and negative controls were analyzed routinely for lab procedure. Results The EGFR mutation test results from 58 cytologic and corresponding histologic specimens are provided in Table 1. The specimens included samples from 30 men and 28 women. Some cytologic archival smear samples had sufficient tumor cells so that only one slide was necessary. In those cases, the slide was divided into two parts: one part of the slide was scraped off using a scalpel for EGFR analysis, and the remainder was stored in the archive. The cytologic and histologic specimens were evaluated for the quality and quantity of tumor tissue available for EGFR testing and were assessed in terms of 3 factors: DNA concentration, tumor cell number and percentage of tumor cells. For ARMS, the lowest DNA concentration that still allowed for detection was 2 ng/μl. The DNA concentration extracted from the cytologic archival smear slides ranged from 2.1 to ng/μl. The DNA concentration extracted from the FFPE specimens ranged from 3.4 to ng/μl. The EGFR mutation was found in 13 of the 30 cytologic archival smear slides of pleural fluid (Fig. 1), including 4 exon 19 deletions and 9 exon 21 L858R substitutions. 12 of the 18 fine-needle aspiration smears of the lung were positive for the EGFR mutation, including 6 deletions in exon 19 (one case with exon 20 S768I) and 6 exon 21 L858R substitutions. 3 of the 10 fine-needle aspiration regional lymph node smears showed exon 19 deletions, and 1 of 10 had exon 21 L858R substitutions. In total, 29 of the 58 cytologic archival smear slides were positive for EGFR mutation (Fig. 2). Exon 21 L858R substitutions were the most common (16 of 29 patients), while exon 19 deletions (13 of 29 patients) and exon 20 mutation (1 of 29 patients) were the next most frequent mutations among the remaining patients. There was 1 patient who had a mutation in both exon 19 and exon 20. These specimens all fulfilled the designated criteria (>2 ng/μl DNA concentration, >30 tumor cells content, and >25 % tumor percentage), and the cytologic specimens exhibited 100 % concordance with the corresponding histologic specimens. The concordance rate of EGFR mutations between the cytologic specimens and the corresponding

3 Table 1 EGFR mutation status in cytologic and corresponding histologic specimens No. Sex Age Procedure site HS type CS type DNA concentration (ng/µl) EGFR mutation status Treatment HS CS HS CS HS CS 1 M 76 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R 21L858R EGFR-TKI 2 M 44 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemoradiotherapy 3 M 61 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 4 F 45 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemoradiotherapy 5 F 48 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R a 21L858R EGFR-TKI 6 F 67 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemoradiotherapy 7 F 37 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R 21L858R EGFR-TKI 8 F 67 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid del 19del EGFR-TKI 9 F 59 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R 21L858R EGFR-TKI 10 M 69 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 11 M 36 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R 21L858R EGFR-TKI 12 M 56 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid del a 19del EGFR-TKI 13 M 66 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 14 M 61 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 15 M 77 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 16 F 66 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid del 19del EGFR-TKI 17 F 78 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 18 F 81 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 19 F 64 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R 21L858R EGFR-TKI 20 F 79 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R 21L858R EGFR-TKI 21 F 78 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 22 M 82 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R 21L858R EGFR-TKI 23 M 54 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid a Chemoradiotherapy 24 F 54 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemoradiotherapy 25 F 48 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemoradiotherapy 26 F 56 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemoradiotherapy 27 F 68 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid L858R 21L858R EGFR-TKI 28 M 62 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemoradiotherapy 29 M 80 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid Chemotherapy 30 M 76 Lung Pleura FNB Fluid del 19del EGFR-TKI 31 F 74 Lung Lung Resection FNA del 19del Surgery + EGFR-TKI 32 F 71 Lung Lung Resection FNA del, 20S768I a 19del, 20S768I Surgery + chemotherapy 33 M 60 Lung Lung Resection FNA Surgery + chemoradiotherapy 34 M 84 Lung Lung Resection FNA L858R 21L858R Surgery + EGFR-TKI 35 M 56 Lung Lung Resection FNA L858R 21L858R Surgery + EGFR-TKI 36 F 34 Lung Lung Resection FNA del 19del Surgery + EGFR-TKI 37 M 57 Lung Lung Resection FNA del 19del Surgery + EGFR-TKI 38 M 66 Lung Lung Resection FNA Surgery + Chemotherapy 39 M 70 Lung Lung Resection FNA del a 19del Surgery + EGFR-TKI 40 F 64 Lung Lung Resection FNA a Surgery + chemotherapy 41 M 72 Lung Lung Resection FNA Surgery 42 M 60 Lung Lung Resection FNA L858R a 21L858R Surgery + EGFR-TKI 43 F 69 Lung Lung Resection FNA del 19del Surgery + EGFR-TKI 44 F 62 Lung Lung Resection FNA L858R 21L858R Surgery + EGFR-TKI 45 M 77 Lung Lung Resection FNA Surgery 46 F 67 Lung Lung Resection FNA L858R 21L858R Surgery + EGFR-TKI

4 Table 1 continued No. Sex Age Procedure site HS type CS type DNA concentration (ng/µl) EGFR mutation status Treatment HS CS HS CS HS CS 47 F 64 Lung Lung Resection FNA L858R 21L858R Surgery + EGFR-TKI 48 F 41 Lung Lung Resection FNA Surgery + chemotherapy 49 F 77 LN LN Resection FNA Chemotherapy 50 M 62 LN LN Resection FNA del 19del EGFR-TKI + radiotherapy 51 M 62 LN LN Resection FNA del 19del EGFR-TKI + radiotherapy 52 M 79 LN LN Resection FNA Chemotherapy 53 M 65 LN LN Resection FNA L858R a 21L858R EGFR-TKI + radiotherapy 54 M 57 LN LN Resection FNA Chemoradiotherapy 55 M 55 LN LN Resection FNA Chemoradiotherapy 56 F 37 LN LN Resection FNA del a 19del EGFR-TKI + radiotherapy 57 F 64 LN LN Resection FNA Chemoradiotherapy 58 M 54 LN LN Resection FNA Chemoradiotherapy CS cytologic specimens, EGFR epidermal growth factor receptor, F female, FNA fine-needle aspiration, FNB fine-needle biopsy, HS histologic specimens, LN lymph node, M male, TKI tyrosine kinase inhibitor, WT wild type, 19del in-frame deletions in exon 19, 20S768I S768I missense mutation in exon 20, 21L858R a point mutation L858R in exon 21 a The results were validated by direct sequencing Fig. 1 A cytologic archival smear of pleural fluid shown, low power (a) and high power (b) histologic specimens was 100 % based on EGFR mutation assessment performed on cytologic specimens of metastatic lesions compared with histologic specimens of primary tumor sites from same patients. Discussion Epidermal growth factor receptor is a member of the ErbB (erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog) family of transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor proteins. Activating EGFR mutations could lead to uncontrolled cell proliferation and resistance to chemotherapy (D Angelo et al. 2011a, b; Gupta et al. 2009). The incidence of EGFR mutations varies by gender, ethnicity and smoking status (D Angelo et al. 2011a, b; Girard et al. 2012; Reinersman et al. 2011). The two most common EGFR mutations in lung adenocarcinomas, which account for 90 % of the mutations, are in-frame deletions in exon 19 and a point mutation at codon 858 in exon 21 (L858R) (Ladanyi and Pao 2008). EGFR mutations were tested using various technologies, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification and sequencing, an amplification refractory mutations system (ARMS), and peptide nucleic acid-locked PCR, among others (Pao and Ladanyi 2007; Ellison et al.

5 Fig. 2 Detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation shown by amplification refractory mutations system (ARMS). a Exon 19 deletion mutation as identified by ARMS. b An exon 19 deletion and an exon 20 point mutation as detected by ARMS. c ARMS identification of an exon 21 point mutation 2010). According to several previous studies, ARMS is a more sensitive and robust assay for the detection of somatic mutations than standard DNA sequencing and can detect as few as 1 % of tumor cells in lung cancer (Ellison et al. 2010; Kimura et al. 2006). In the present study, we evaluated the presence of EGFR mutations in cytologic smear slides and corresponding histologic specimens using ARMS. Scalpel extraction is a relatively simple macrodissection method (Khode et al. 2013). Chowdhuri et al. (2012) demonstrated the feasibility of using laser-capture microdissection for EGFR testing of cytologic samples; however, laser-capture microdissection is an expensive method that is not available to all laboratories. DNA concentration, tumor cell number, and percentage of tumor cells were important and could interfere with obtaining sufficient material for EGFR analysis from the cytologic samples. This difficulty has been highlighted in several studies, including one conducted by Savic et al. (2008), who determined that 30 cells was the minimum number required for successful DNA sequencing analysis of EGFR. Furthermore, Smouse et al. (2009) reported the detection of mutations in cytologic samples with tumor percentages between 25 and 50 % using a direct sequencing method. A matched group of cytologic and corresponding histologic specimens was analyzed by Sun et al. (2013), who demonstrated that the minimal requirements for cytologic samples that allowed for successful pyrosequencing analysis of EGFR were: a DNA concentration >25 ng/μl, the presence of >30 tumor cells, or a tumor percentage >30 %. They found that cytologic specimens that satisfied

6 at least 1 of these 3 requirements exhibited 100 % concordance with the corresponding histologic specimens. On the basis of these results, our study determined the EGFR mutation status of fifty-eight paired cytologic and histologic specimens of lung adenocarcinomas that satisfied the 3 parameters (>2 ng/μl DNA concentration, >30 tumor cells content, and >25 % tumor percentage) as analyzed by ARMS. The cytologic specimens exhibited 100 % concordance with the corresponding histologic specimens. To validate the results obtained by ARMS, the EGFR mutations status of 9 cases of histologic specimens (as shown in Table 1) was detected by direct sequencing, which had shown 100 % concordance with ARMS. We recommend using the ARMS method to evaluate EGFR mutation in cytologic samples that satisfy the 3 requisite parameters. In the present study, the majority of cytologic specimens from metastatic lesions were pleural fluids (30 of 40 specimens), and the majority of histologic specimens from primary tumors were obtained by FNB (30 of 48 specimens). The concordance rate of EGFR mutations from different sites (cytologic specimens from metastatic lesions and histologic specimens from primary tumors) from the same patient was 100 %. Several previous studies have reported a heterogeneous distribution of EGFR mutations in primary lung adenocarcinomas and corresponding metastatic lesions (Sun et al. 2011; Kalikaki et al. 2008; Han et al. 2011; Navani et al. 2012). This difference may be explained by the following 2 factors: (1) the cases of matched cytologic and histologic specimens were limited, and (2) heterogeneity in the distribution of EGFR mutations is rare in lung adenocarcinomas, as noted by Yatabe et al. (2011). In conclusion, EGFR mutation analysis of cytologic specimens that satisfy 3 designated parameters (>2 ng/μl DNA concentration, >30 tumor cells content, and >25 % tumor percentage) is a convenient and reliable procedure. We suggest that specimens from both primary lung adenocarcinomas and metastatic lesions could be used for EGFR mutation analysis. Acknowledgments The authors thank all of the patients who participated in this study. Conflict of interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. References Aisner DL, Deshpande C, Baloch Z, Watt CD, Litzky LA, Malhotra B et al (2013) Evaluation of EGFR mutation status in cytology specimens: an institutional experience. Diagn Cytopathol 41: Boyle P, Levin B (2008) World cancer report International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon Bruno P, Mariotta S, Ricci A, Duranti E, Scozzi D, Noto A et al (2011) Reliability of direct sequencing of EGFR: comparison between cytological and histological samples from the same patient. Anticancer Res 31: Chowdhuri SR, Xi L, Pham TH, Hanson J, Rodriguez-Canales J, Berman A et al (2012) EGFR and KRAS mutation analysis in cytologic samples of lung adenocarcinoma enabled by laser capture microdissection. Mod Pathol 25: Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR, Storm H, Ferlay J, Heanue M et al (2007) Cancer incidence in five continents, vol IX. IARC Scientific Publications, Lyon D Angelo SP, Park B, Azzoli CG, Kris MG, Rusch V, Ladanyi M et al (2011a) Reflex testing of resected stage I through III lung adenocarcinomas for EGFR and KRAS mutation: report on initial experience and clinical utility at a single center. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141: D Angelo SP, Pietanza MC, Johnson ML, Riely GJ, Miller VA, Sima CS et al (2011b) Incidence of EGFR exon 19 deletions and L858R in tumor specimens from men and cigarette smokers with lung adenocarcinomas. J Clin Oncol 29: da Cunha Santos G, Saieg MA, Geddie W, Leighl N (2011) EGFR gene status in cytological samples of nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: controversies and opportunities. Cancer Cytopathol 119:80 91 Ellison G, Donald E, McWalter G, Knight L, Fletcher L, Sherwood J et al (2010) A comparison of ARMS and DNA sequencing for mutation analysis in clinical biopsy samples. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 29:132 Girard N, Sima CS, Jackman DM, Sequist LV, Chen H, Yang JC et al (2012) Nomogram to predict the presence of EGFR activating mutation in lung adenocarcinoma. Eur Respir J 39: Gupta R, Dastane AM, Forozan F, Riley-Portuguez A, Chung F, Lopategui J et al (2009) Evaluation of EGFR abnormalities in patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma: the need to test neoplasms with more than one method. Mod Pathol 22: Han HS, Eom DW, Kim JH, Kim KH, Shin HM, An JY et al (2011) EGFR mutation status in primary lung adenocarcinomas and corresponding metastatic lesions: discordance in pleural metastases. Clin Lung Cancer 12: Kalikaki A, Koutsopoulos A, Trypaki M, Souglakos J, Stathopoulos E, Georgoulias V et al (2008) Comparison of EGFR and K-RAS gene status between primary tumours and corresponding metastases in NSCLC. Br J Cancer 99: Khode R, Larsen DA, Culbreath BC, Parrish S, Walker KL, Sayage- Rabie L et al (2013) Comparative study of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation analysis on cytology smears and surgical pathology specimens from primary and metastatic lung carcinomas. Cancer Cytopathol 121: Kimura H, Kasahara K, Kawaishi M, Kunitoh H, Tamura T, Holloway B et al (2006) Detection of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in serum as a predictor of the response to gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 12: Ladanyi M, Pao W (2008) Lung adenocarcinoma: guiding EGFR-targeted therapy and beyond. Mod Pathol 21:S16 S22 Malapelle U, de Rosa N, Rocco D, Bellevicine C, Crispino C, Illiano A et al (2012) EGFR and KRAS mutations detection on lung cancer liquid-based cytology: a pilot study. J Clin Pathol 65:87 91 Navani N, Brown JM, Nankivell M, Woolhouse I, Harrison RN, Jeebun V et al (2012) Suitability of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens for subtyping and genotyping of non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter study of 774 patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 185: Pao W, Ladanyi M (2007) Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing in lung cancer: searching for the ideal method. Clin Cancer Res 13: Reinersman JM, Johnson ML, Riely GJ, Chitale DA, Nicastri AD, Soff GA et al (2011) Frequency of EGFR and KRAS mutations in lung adenocarcinomas in African Americans. J Thorac Oncol 6:28 31

7 Savic S, Tapia C, Grilli B, Rufle A, Bihl MP, de Vito Barascud A et al (2008) Comprehensive epidermal growth factor receptor gene analysis from cytological specimens of non-small-cell lung cancers. Br J Cancer 98: Shah PL, Singh S, Bower M, Livni N, Padley S, Nicholson AG (2006) The role of transbronchial fine needle aspiration in an integrated care pathway for the assessment of patients with suspected lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 1: Smouse JH, Cibas ES, Janne PA, Joshi VA, Zou KH, Lindeman NI (2009) EGFR mutations are detected comparably in cytologic and surgical pathology specimens of nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 117:67 72 Sun L, Zhang Q, Luan H, Zhan Z, Wang C, Sun B (2011) Comparison of KRAS and EGFR gene status between primary non-small cell lung cancer and local lymph node metastases: implications for clinical practice. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 30:30 Sun PL, Jin Y, Kim H, Lee CT, Jheon S, Chung JH (2013) High concordance of EGFR mutation status between histologic and corresponding cytologic specimens of lung adenocarcinomas. Cancer Cytopathol 121: Tanaka T, Nagai Y, Miyazawa H, Koyama N, Matsuoka S, Sutani A et al (2007) Reliability of the peptide nucleic acid-locked nucleic acid polymerase chain reaction clamp based test for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations integrated into the clinical practice for non-small cell lung cancers. Cancer Sci 98: Yatabe Y, Matsuo K, Mitsudomi T (2011) Heterogeneous distribution of EGFR mutations is extremely rare in lung adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 29: