Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

Diagnostic and Predictive Immunohistochemistry for Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinomas

Hung, Yin P., MD, PhD; Sholl, Lynette M., MD

doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000206
Review Articles

Non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) accounts for significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, with most patients diagnosed at advanced stages and managed increasingly with targeted therapies and immunotherapy. In this review, we discuss diagnostic and predictive immunohistochemical markers in NSCLC, one of the most common tumors encountered in surgical pathology. We highlight 2 emerging diagnostic markers: nuclear protein in testis (NUT) for NUT carcinoma; SMARCA4 for SMARCA4-deficient thoracic tumors. Given their highly aggressive behavior, proper recognition facilitates optimal management. For patients with advanced NSCLCs, we discuss the utility and limitations of immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the “must-test” predictive biomarkers: anaplastic lymphoma kinase, ROS1, programmed cell death protein 1, and epidermal growth factor receptor. IHC using mutant-specific BRAF V600E, RET, pan-TRK, and LKB1 antibodies can be orthogonal tools for screening or confirmation of molecular events. ERBB2 and MET alterations include both activating mutations and gene amplifications, detection of which relies on molecular methods with a minimal role for IHC in NSCLC. IHC sits at the intersection of an integrated surgical pathology and molecular diagnostic practice, serves as a powerful functional surrogate for molecular testing, and is an indispensable tool of precision medicine in the care of lung cancer patients.

Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Present address: Yin P. Hung, MD, PhD, Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

L.M.S. discloses a consulting relationship with Gfk group. Y.P.H. has no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Reprints: Lynette M. Sholl, MD, Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: lmsholl@bwh.harvard.edu).

All figures can be viewed online in colour at www.anatomicpathology.com.

Non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) accounts for significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, with most patients diagnosed at advanced stages and managed with systemic therapy and, increasingly, targeted therapy and immunotherapy.1 Approximately 60% of lung adenocarcinomas harbor oncogenic driver alterations, including in KRAS, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, ERBB2, and others,2,3 most of which occur in a mutually exclusive pattern.4–6 Lung squamous cell carcinomas generally lack these alterations and instead have a high proportion of TP53 mutations and frequent PI3K pathway activation.7,8 The 2018 clinical testing guideline from the College of American Pathologists (CAP), International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) defined EGFR, ALK, and ROS1 as the “must-test” biomarkers for advanced lung adenocarcinoma; given established and emerging clinical trial data, an expanded panel should also at a minimum include BRAF, MET, RET, ERBB2, and KRAS.9 Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the dominant predictive biomarker in guiding advanced NSCLC patients to immunotherapy. This large number of diverse clinically relevant targets present a logistical challenge, both in terms of methodology and tissue allocation. With increasing use of minimally invasive techniques in specimen procurement, the available tumor tissue can be scant and, in ~25% of cases, insufficient for molecular testing.10 For optimal management of patients with NSCLC, one of the most common tumors encountered in surgical pathology, effective use of IHC for diagnosis and treatment prediction is crucial.

This review highlights the role for IHC in diagnosis and therapeutic prediction in NSCLC, with an emphasis on molecular correlates. We highlight 2 recently described and possibly underrecognized entities, nuclear protein in testis (NUT) carcinoma and SMARCA4-deficient thoracic tumors, the proper recognition of which facilitates optimal management given their highly aggressive behavior. We review the role of IHC for obligate and emerging molecular biomarkers in lung adenocarcinoma, including EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, pan-TRK, LKB1, ERBB2/HER2, MET, and PD-L1 (Table 1).

TABLE 1

TABLE 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

DIAGNOSTIC CONSIDERATION ON IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL AND MOLECULAR BIOMARKERS IN NON–SMALL CELL LUNG CARCINOMA

Diagnostic IHC should be performed judiciously and always in a manner informed by the patient’s the clinical status. It is important to recognize that for some patients with a known diagnosis of advanced NSCLC, a tumor biopsy will be performed to confirm recurrence and evaluate for resistance mechanisms to targeted therapy, such as EGFR T790M mutation or small cell transformation in EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma following treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI).11,12 Diagnostic immunostains may be of marginal value in this situation. Instead, tissue conservation for biomarkers studies is paramount.

At the time of primary diagnosis for a patient with suspected lung cancer, a biopsy showing a NSCLC with no apparent squamous or glandular differentiation should be further evaluated with a focused panel consisting of TTF-1 and p40 (or p63) for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma differentiation, respectively.13–15 Of note, multiple commercially available TTF-1 antibody clones differ in their characteristics: 8G7G3/1 (Dako, Carpinteria, CA) is the most specific for primary lung adenocarcinoma, followed by SPT24 (Leica, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK), while SP141 (Ventana, Tucson, AZ) is most sensitive but least specific and often labels bronchial basal epithelial cells.16–20 The p63 antibody clone 4A4 (Abcam, Cambridge, MA) and p40 antibody 5-17 (CalBiochem, Nottingham, UK) are commonly used for squamous cell carcinoma, with p40 being more specific but less sensitive.21–23 If first-round IHC is uninformative (eg, pan-negative or equivocal expression, or only focal p63 staining), one can use second-line markers such as mucicarmine stain and IHC for Napsin-A (for adenocarcinoma) and CK5 (for squamous cell carcinoma). The lung is a common site for metastatic disease. Thus in the appropriate context and especially when the expected primary lung markers are negative, the pathologist should exclude metastases with relevant transcription factor, keratin, and other cytoplasmic protein markers.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Nuclear Protein in Testis

NUT carcinoma is considered an aggressive type of squamous cell carcinoma defined by rearrangement of NUT, with fusion to BRD4 in most cases,24,25 rarely to BRD3, NSD3,26,27 and a variety of other partners. NUT carcinoma was initially described in midline head and neck and mediastinum in primarily young patients;28 however, both anatomic distribution and age of onset are diverse.29–31 NUT carcinoma is highly aggressive, with a median survival of <5 to 7 months.31,32 Investigational trials using bromodomain inhibitors are ongoing.33,34 Given its distinct clinicopathologic features, NUT carcinoma has been recognized as a separate entity in the 2015 WHO classification of thoracic malignancies.1 In particular, a “poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma” in a young nonsmoker should prompt a consideration of NUT carcinoma. Overall, NUT carcinomas are identified in 0.6% to 3.5% of poorly differentiated or previously unclassified thoracic malignancies.30 Histologically, NUT carcinoma is characterized by monomorphic primitive-appearing, basaloid, epithelioid to ovoid cells, with vesicular nuclei and variably prominent nucleoli (Fig. 1A); abrupt keratinization can be a helpful clue, albeit present in only a subset of cases.28 Differential diagnosis of NUT carcinoma includes other carcinomas, melanomas, and round-cell sarcomas. Immunophenotypically, NUT carcinomas show variable expression of keratin, p63, p40, TTF-1, CD34, and CD99,28,30,32,35 compounding diagnostic challenge. Given its rarity, histologic overlap with other more common tumors, and its indistinct immunophenotype, prospective identification of NUT carcinoma can be challenging. However, use of IHC for NUT protein can readily include or exclude the diagnosis. The anti-NUT antibody clone C52B1 (Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA) has reported 87% sensitivity and 100% specificity for NUT carcinoma relative to fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing; tumor cells show characteristic speckled nuclear immunoreactivity (Fig. 1B).36 NUT IHC positivity is defined as nuclear expression in >50% of tumor cells, and histologic mimics such as germ cell tumors (including >60% of dysgerminoma) may show focal weak NUT expression.36 FISH for NUT rearrangement may be informative in cases where NUT carcinoma is strongly suspected but IHC is negative or equivocal.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

SMARCA4

Mutations in SMARCA4, a member of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, are present in diverse human tumors,37,38 including ~6% of lung adenocarcinomas2,39 and rare lung squamous cell carcinoma.7 Germline and somatic mutations in SMARCA4 are present in >95% of small cell carcinoma of ovary, hypercalcemic type,40–42 along with a subset of rhabdoid tumors43,44 and epithelioid sarcoma with retained SMARCB1 expression,45 and a subset of undifferentiated to poorly differentiated endometrial,46 gastrointestinal,47 urothelial,48 and sinonasal tumors.49 Loss of SMARCA4 expression correlates with histologic dedifferentiation in endometrioid carcinomas50 and is a diagnostic IHC finding in small cell carcinomas of ovary, hypercalcemic type.51

SMARCA4-deficient thoracic tumors (SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma and SMARCA4-deficient lung adenocarcinoma) were recently described.52–58 Initially reported in 19 patients with large aggressive mediastinal tumors,54 SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcomas show a predominance for male smokers with a wide age distribution, but median age of 30 to 40 years.55,56 Cases presenting as small (<1.5 cm) primary lung tumors56 or in never-smokers54–56 have also been noted. SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma is genetically characterized by SMARCA4 inactivating mutation, with a transcriptional profile similar to small cell carcinomas of ovary, hypercalcemic type.54 Histologically, SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma displays discohesive round-to-ovoid cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and often rhabdoid morphology (Fig. 1C),54–56 features that overlap with SMARCB1-deficient tumors.59 Loss of SMARCA4 expression appears enriched in thoracic tumors with rhabdoid morphology, present in up to 30% in one series.56 Differential diagnosis includes poorly differentiated carcinomas, melanomas, sarcomas, and germ cell tumors. Immunophenotypically, SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma is characterized by complete loss of SMARCA4 using clones EPNCIR111A (Abcam) or EPR3912 (Abcam) (Fig. 1D), along with SOX2 overexpression and SMARCA2 loss, variable immunoreactivity for keratin, CD34, and SALL4, but lacking NUT, S100, and claudin-4.54–56 SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcomas are highly aggressive, with a median survival of 4 to 7 months,54–56 although rare cases with survival up to 9 years have been documented.56 SMARCA4 loss has also been described in ~2% of NSCLC.52,53,57,58 SMARCA4-deficient lung adenocarcinomas, in contrast, may show differentiated histology with conspicuous gland formation, can express CK7 and HepPar-1, but generally lack TTF-1.57 Claudin-4, a gap junction-associated protein, has been suggested as an IHC marker to distinguish between SMARCA4-deficient sarcomas and carcinomas;60 however, claudin-4 loss has also been observed in dedifferentiated lung adenocarcinoma.55 Definitive classification of SMARCA4-deficient thoracic tumors (as sarcomas or carcinomas) thus remain challenging and may be clinically relevant in light of clinical evidence that SMARCA4 loss predicts increased sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy in NSCLC61 and preclinical data suggesting activity of EZH2 inhibitors in tumors with BAF-deficiency dependency.62

Back to Top | Article Outline

“MUST-TEST” PREDICTIVE BIOMARKERS IN NON–SMALL CELL LUNG CARCINOMA

Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase

Since its initial description in anaplastic large cell lymphoma,63 rearrangement of ALK has been described in a subset of diverse epithelial, mesothelial, and mesenchymal neoplasms.64–66 ALK rearrangement is present in ~5% of lung adenocarcinomas, most commonly as EML4-ALK fusion67 and rarely fusions to other partners (KIF5B, TFG, HIP1, KLC1, GCC2, LMO7, and PHACTR1).68–70 In NSCLC, ALK rearrangement is enriched in young nonsmokers and occurs almost exclusively in adenocarcinomas,71,72 often with solid or annular pattern and signet-ring cells.73–76 In the United States, ALK inhibitors crizotinib and alectinib have been approved for first line therapy;75,77–79 a variety of other newer generation ALK inhibitors have shown efficacy including in patients with acquired resistance to first line ALK inhibitors.80 Currently, ALK-targeted therapy is the standard of care in patients with ALK-rearranged lung carcinomas. Given the clinical efficacy of ALK-targeted therapy and the imperfect correlation between ALK rearrangement status and clinicopathologic features, ALK testing is recommended in all patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas, regardless of age or smoking status.9,81

ALK rearrangements may be detected using break-apart FISH, molecular or sequencing methods, or by IHC. IHC antibody clones historically suitable for diagnosis of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (eg, ALK1) are insufficiently sensitive in NSCLC;82 however, the newer clones D5F3 (Ventana) and 5A4 (Leica) are ≥95% sensitive and specific (Fig. 2A) relative to ALK FISH.9,83,84 Given the accumulation of data supporting the excellent clinical performance characteristics of well-validated ALK IHC, the molecular testing guidelines have evolved from recommending ALK IHC only as a screening tool requiring FISH confirmation81 to a standalone assay for use in selecting lung cancer patients for ALK-targeted therapy.9 Indeed, some studies suggest that ALK IHC better predicts clinical response to crizotinib than does ALK FISH.85 Furthermore, ALK IHC can be used in limited specimens that may be insufficient for FISH scoring. The 5′ fusion partner affects the subcellular localization of the aberrant protein and thus may be inferred from the pattern of ALK IHC staining.70 Finally, ALK IHC can be an orthogonal tool to confirm bona fide ALK alterations in unexpected scenarios, for instance in rare tumors with concomitant drivers such as EGFR mutation.86

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

ROS1

Initially described in a glioblastoma cell line,87 ROS1 rearrangements are present in up to 3% of lung adenocarcinomas,68,88–93 with ROS1 fusions to diverse 5′ partners, such as CD74, TPM3, SDC4, SLC34A2, EZR, LRIG3, and FIG.68,69,89,94 Similar to NSCLC with ALK rearrangements, ROS1-rearranged NSCLC are enriched in young nonsmokers and are exclusively adenocarcinomas,88,91,93,95 characterized by solid, mucinous cribriform, or papillary architecture with signet-ring cells or variable psammomatous calcifications.90,92,96,97 Similar to the treatment of ALK-rearranged NSCLC, crizotinib is efficacious in patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC.98 Currently, ROS1 is considered one of “must-test” biomarkers, along with ALK and EGFR, in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas regardless of demographics.9

Although ROS1 FISH testing is the most common approach to detection of ROS1 rearrangement,88 molecular and/or IHC approaches may be used. The ROS1 antibody clone D4D6 (Cell Signaling) is highly sensitive (>95% relative to other techniques; Fig. 2B), but immunoreactivity may be diminished in ROS1-rearranged cases with suboptimal tissue fixation.9,89,90,96,97,99–102 As with ALK, the 5′ fusion partner may be inferred from the pattern of staining, with globular staining in CD74-ROS1 tumors or membranous accentuation in EZR-ROS1 tumors.97 The specificity of ROS1 IHC, however, varies among studies depending on the analytic variables and scoring criteria,9,89,90,96,97,99–102 with one study noting up to 8-fold ROS1 IHC-positive cases relative to ROS1 FISH-positive cases.96 The suboptimal specificity of ROS1 IHC results from occasional staining in macrophages, reactive pneumocytes, and low level expression in non ROS1-rearranged tumors.90,96,97,101–103 ROS1 IHC is currently recommended as a screening test in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas, with positive results confirmed by a molecular or cytogenetic method. Given the high negative predictive value, a negative ROS1 IHC result is considered reliable to exclude ROS1 rearrangement,9 and ROS1 IHC can also serve as a useful orthogonal tool to validate findings by FISH or molecular methods.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Programmed Cell Death Protein 1

Immune checkpoint blockade of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway104 is now an essential part of the armamentarium in oncology. As of spring 2018, the following immune checkpoint inhibitors (against their cognate targets) have been approved for the treatment of advanced NSCLC: nivolumab (PD-1), pembrolizumab (PD-1), atezolizumab (PD-L1), and durvalumab (PD-L1). Since these drugs can lead to immune-related adverse events and confer benefit to only a subset of patients, biomarker testing to optimize therapeutic response is crucial, particularly in the setting of first line monotherapy.105 In addition to PD-L1 IHC, efficacy of checkpoint blockade correlates with genomic driver status, mutational burden, smoking signature, neoantigen burden, and mismatch repair status.106–110

Although an imperfect biomarker for predicting immunotherapy response, PD-L1 IHC has been integrated in clinical trials and routine practice. The PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS; percentage of tumor cells with membranous PD-L1 immunoreactivity) cutoff of ≥50% was derived from a phase 1 study of pembrolizumab in advanced NSCLC.111 In treatment-naive patients with advanced NSCLC (both squamous and nonsquamous) and PD-L1 TPS≥50%, pembrolizumab monotherapy is superior to chemotherapy with improvement in both progression-free survival and 12-month survival.112 In treatment-naive patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, combined pembrolizumab and platinum chemotherapy shows better overall survival than chemotherapy alone, irrespective of PD-L1 score, albeit greatest when TPS≥50%.113 Another PD-1 inhibitor, nivolumab, shows no survival benefit over chemotherapy in treatment-naive patients with advanced NSCLC,110 but is superior to docetaxel in both squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC in previously treated patients,114,115 a subset of which demonstrates sustained response.116 Second-line atezolizumab is also superior to docetaxel in this setting.117 Second-line pembrolizumab also shows survival benefits over docetaxel for advanced NSCLC in the context of PD-L1 TPS of ≥1%.118 Of note, first line pembrolizumab is not approved for EGFR-mutant or ALK-rearranged tumors, as patients with these alterations tend not to respond to immunotherapy.119,120

In today’s practice, for EGFR-wild type and ALK-wild type tumors, PD-L1 IHC is required to identify advanced NSCLC patients eligible for first line pembrolizumab, with a cutoff of TPS≥50% required for monotherapy. PD-L1 testing is not required for combined therapy for nonsquamous NSCLC. For second-line treatment, PD-L1 IHC with a TPS cutoff of ≥1% is required for pembrolizumab. There is no PD-L1 IHC requirement for nivolumab or atezolizumab, but in general response to these drugs correlates positively with extent of PD-L1 expression.114,117 For early stage resected NSCLC patients, while PD-L1 IHC alone is neither prognostic nor predictive for adjuvant chemotherapy,121 recent promising results on neoadjuvant nivolumab before surgical resection122 suggests some value to evaluating PD-L1, perhaps in conjunction with other biomarkers, in this setting.

Assessment of PD-L1 IHC can be challenging in clinical practice. Multiple commercially available assays are available with different scoring criteria/cutoffs and variable use of antibodies and platform. Scoring reproducibility is adversely affected by both interobserver and intraobserver variability.123 For pembrolizumab, a companion diagnostic platform using clone 22C3 (Dako) pharmDx (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) can be used. For nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab, clones 28-8 (Abcam), SP142 (Ventana), and SP263 (Ventana) can be used as complementary tests, respectively. Laboratory-developed tests have been developed both using clones associated with specific diagnostics, as well as with commercially available antibodies that have not been partnered with a therapeutic such as clone E1L3N (Cell Signaling Technology). For each of these antibodies, PD-L1 immunoreactivity is defined only as membranous staining (Fig. 2C). Although most assays evaluate only the tumor cell PD-L1 status, the complementary diagnostic for atezolizumab in advanced NSCLC evaluates both tumor cells and immune cells; the best clinical response is seen in patients with high tumor cell score (>50%) or immune cell score (>10%).117,124 Multi-institutional studies, including those affiliated with the International Association for Study of Lung Cancer (Blueprint) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, have been assessing the performance and comparability among PD-L1 antibodies, staining platforms, and observer interpretations.125,126 In NSCLC, PD-L1 result discordance is attributed to intratumoral heterogeneity and variations both within and among the assays/platforms in a quantitative immunofluorescence analysis.127 Although the PD-L1 epitopes (intracellular vs. extracellular domain) targeted by the antibody clones differ,128 PD-L1 antibodies including E1L3N, 22C3, SP263, E1J2J (Cell Signaling Technology), 9A11 (Cell Signaling Technology), and 28-8 are highly concordant in their performance in a well-controlled laboratory.129,130 SP142 complementary diagnostic, however, shows consistently lower PD-L1 staining.125,126,131 Pathologists are relatively concordant when scoring tumor but not immune cell expression.125 Scoring PD-L1 IHC in tumor cells in cytologic specimens also shows good concordance with surgical specimens.132

Back to Top | Article Outline

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor

As the second most common oncogenic driver (after KRAS) in NSCLC, somatic mutations in EGFR are present in ~10% to 20% of patients in North America and Europe but are enriched in nonsmokers and women. In East Asians populations, EGFR mutations are present in about to 50% of lung adenocarcinomas.3,133–138 Among NSCLC, EGFR mutations are present almost exclusively in lung adenocarcinomas, often showing terminal respiratory unit-type histology with lepidic, acinar, or papillary patterns.139,140 A diagnosis of lung squamous cell carcinoma harboring EGFR mutation most likely represents an adenosquamous carcinoma with an unsampled adenocarcinoma component.141,142 Activating EGFR mutations in lung cancers are located in the kinase domain in exons 18 to 21, and >90% of mutations clusters in 2 hot spots: L858R in exon 21 and in-frame deletion of the ELREA motif in exon 19.143 Germline EGFR T790M mutations have also been reported in patients with a family history of lung cancer or in never-smokers with multifocal lung adenocarcinomas.144,145 Sensitizing EGFR mutations are associated with clinical response to TKIs.133,134,137 In the first line treatment of advanced lung adenocarcinomas, EGFR TKI therapy is superior to standard chemotherapy for EGFR-mutant tumors, but not for EGFR-wild type tumors,137 highlighting the importance of evaluating EGFR status before therapy selection. Response and disease control rates using EGFR-targeted therapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC are 68% and 86%, respectively, as compared with 11% and 47% in EGFR-wild type NSCLC.81 The irreversible EGFR TKI osimertinib is effective in patients with progressive disease following targeted therapy due to acquired EGFR T790M mutation11 and is also superior to first generation EGFR TKIs in terms of progression-free survival in the front-line setting.146,147 Given the efficacy of EGFR-targeted therapy and the imperfect correlation of EGFR status with clinicopathologic features, EGFR testing is recommended in all patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas, regardless of age, ethnicity, or smoking status.9,81

In selecting patients for EGFR-targeted therapy, EGFR mutation testing should be performed using a sequencing approach.9,81 IHC for total EGFR protein does not predict patient outcome to TKIs148 and has no clinical utility in selecting this therapy. EGFR mutant–specific antibodies for L858R, including clones 43B2 (Cell Signaling; Fig. 2D) and SP125 (Ventana), and for exon 19 E746-A750 deletion, including clones 6B6 (Cell Signaling) and SP111 (Ventana), have been evaluated using molecular testing as the gold standard.149–156 The clinical performance of these antibodies is variable with some reports suggesting sensitivity of only 44% and specificity of 70%.155 False positive IHC results have been documented in tumors with EGFR exon 20 insertion primary resistance mutations.150 Given these performance characteristics and the increasing availability of highly sensitive molecular assays, including plasma circulating tumor DNA testing, use of EGFR mutant–specific IHC as a sole basis for therapy selection is discouraged.9 Nonetheless, EGFR mutant–specific IHC may be considered in limited-resource specimens,81 particularly in regions with high prevalence of EGFR mutations,157 or when validating unexpected sequencing results such as concomitant oncogenic drivers. Given the low negative predictive value, tumors with negative EGFR mutant–specific IHC results should be retested for EGFR mutations using molecular methods.

Back to Top | Article Outline

EMERGING PREDICTIVE BIOMARKERS IN NON–SMALL CELL LUNG CARCINOMA

IHC may be used for detection of BRAF V600E, as well as alterations in RET, pan-TRK, and LKB1. ERBB2 and MET alterations in NSCLC include both activating mutations and gene amplifications, detection of which relies on molecular methods with a minimal role for IHC.

Back to Top | Article Outline

BRAF

Mutations in BRAF are present in 3% to 5% of lung adenocarcinomas; most of these patients are smokers.158–161 BRAF V600E mutation, accounting for ~50% of all BRAF mutations in NSCLC,158–161 is associated with micropapillary histology.159,162 Combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK by trametinib and dabrafenib163,164 has demonstrated efficacy in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant lung adenocarcinomas. The BRAF V600E mutant–specific IHC using the antibody clone VE1 (SpringBio, Pleasanton, CA) has been evaluated in melanoma, papillary thyroid carcinoma, and colorectal adenocarcinoma. Although BRAF V600E IHC is generally concordant with BRAF molecular testing, its clinical utility largely depends on the tumor type.165,166 Two studies using clone VE1 for detecting BRAF V600E mutation in lung adenocarcinomas have found sensitivity and specificity of ≥90% and ≥95%, respectively.167,168 Given the clinical efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy in NSCLC, more studies are needed to assess the utility of BRAF IHC for guiding therapy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RET

Initially described in a subset of papillary thyroid carcinomas,169 rearrangements of RET are present in 1% to 2% of NSCLC, with fusion to KIF5B in most cases69,94,170–173 and rarely to diverse partners including CCDC6, NCOA4, TRIM33, and others.174–176 RET-rearranged NSCLC are enriched in young nonsmokers, though the age distribution can be wide, and nonsmoking association appears to be weaker than for ALK and ROS1 rearrangements.6,9,95,172,174,177 For a subset of patients with RET-rearranged NSCLC, multitargeted kinase inhibition using cabozantinib or vandetanib has demonstrated clinical benefits.177–181 Histologically, RET-rearranged NSCLC are predominantly adenocarcinomas; 2 RET-rearranged adenosquamous carcinomas have been described in the literature.172 RET rearrangement status has been correlated with papillary or acinar growth with conspicuous intranuclear pseudoinclusions and psammomatous calcifications, reminiscent of papillary thyroid carcinoma.94,182 Other series describe tumors with solid or cribriform histology with signet-ring cells, reminiscent of ALK-rearranged or ROS1-rearranged adenocarcinomas.172,182,183 Evaluation for RET rearrangement is primarily through molecular techniques or break-apart FISH; however, for the most common fusion KIF5B-RET, the probe separation resulting from the causative intrachromosomal inversion can be too subtle for reliable detection by FISH.182 As regards RET IHC, while reasonable performance has been reported in one study using the antibody clone EPR2871 (Abcam), with 100% sensitivity and 83% specificity,182 other studies using this and another clone 3F8 (Leica) have found the overall performance disappointing, being neither sensitive nor specific for RET rearrangements.171,174,184,185 More studies are needed to evaluate the potential utility of RET IHC and the optimal diagnostic algorithm in identifying RET rearrangements in NSCLC.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pan-TRK

Rearrangements of neurotrophic tyrosine kinase 1 (NTRK1) have been identified in rare (0.1%) lung adenocarcinomas,186 or ~3% of NSCLC with no known oncogenic drivers.187 Oncogenic NTRK fusion involves diverse 5′ partners, leading to constitutive TRK signaling. TRK-targeted inhibition by larotrectinib has been shown to be efficacious in NTRK-rearranged tumors from diverse origins and histologic types, including 4 lung adenocarcinomas in adults and adolescents.188 Pan-TRK, an antibody clone EPR17341 (Abcam) that recognizes a conserved C-terminal sequence of TRK proteins, has been used to identify and confirm tumors with NTRK fusions, including 2 NTRK1-rearranged lung adenocarcinomas.189 Although clinical and histologic features of NTRK1-rearranged lung adenocarcinoma have not been well described, identification of NTRK rearrangements in lung adenocarcinomas using NGS and/or IHC is increasingly relevant to guide these patients for TRK-targeted therapy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Future Directions: STK11/LKB1, ERBB2/HER2, and MET

Mutations in STK11/LKB1 are present in ~30% of lung adenocarcinomas, often co-occur with KRAS mutations in smokers,3,190–192 and are associated with a lack of benefit of immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients.107,119 Using LKB1 antibody clone Ley37D/G6 (Abcam), loss of LKB1 expression (Fig. 2E) has been shown to portend aggressive behavior with frequent metastases in KRAS-mutant NSCLC.193 Although earlier studies show good concordance between STK11 biallelic inactivation and LKB1 IHC,194 LKB1 expression can be heterogeneous among cases, from focal to complete loss. Considering the multiple mechanisms for LKB1 inactivation, data on the sensitivity and specificity of LKB1 IHC for STK11 alterations are limited.193

ERBB2/HER2 alterations in NSCLC comprise both activating mutations and gene amplification. Activating exon 20 in-frame insertion mutations195 are reported in 1% to 4% of NSCLC, enriched in nonsmokers and primarily in adenocarcinomas.196–200 Activating ERBB2 transmembrane domain mutations have also been noted, with altered HER2 receptor dimerization and responsiveness to afatinib.201 In contrast, amplification of ERBB2 is present in 1% to 3% of NSCLC, including a subset of EGFR-mutant NSCLC resistant to targeted therapy.202 There is no consistent association between ERBB2 activating mutations and copy number status.198,203 Detection of ERBB2 mutations or amplification in NSCLC relies exclusively on molecular methods, with no established role for IHC. Clinical trials of targeted therapy on ERBB2-mutated NSCLC are ongoing.204,205

MET alterations in NSCLC include both activating mutations and gene amplification. MET amplification is a well-documented mechanism of resistance to targeted therapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.11,206 Diverse MET exon 14 splice site mutations have been described, leading to skipping of exon 14 that encodes the juxtamembrane regulatory domain.207 MET exon 14 mutation is present in ~3% of NSCLC,2,208–210 associated with advanced age, stage, and pleomorphic histology (up to ~32% of cases).208–211 A subset of patients with MET exon 14-mutated NSCLC responds to crizotinib208,212 or carbozantinib.213 MET exon 14 mutation and MET amplification each is associated with worse survival.208,210 IHC using the c-Met antibody clone SP44 (SpringBio) has been used in the research setting to demonstrate MET protein overexpression (Fig. 2F) but has no established clinical role. Although MET exon 14-mutated NSCLC shows stage-dependent MET amplification and c-Met overexpression,208 c-Met expression alone does not predict survival and apparently shows poor correlation with MET mutation status.208,210

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

IHC is a stalwart in the rapid diagnosis and definitive classification of lung carcinomas. On limited biopsies, a focused IHC panel conserves tissue for predictive biomarker and molecular testing. For patients with advanced lung cancer, predictive IHC for ALK, ROS1, and PD-L1 rapidly provides clinically actionable information for planning therapy. A library of high-quality antibodies correlating with overexpression of oncogenic rearrangements, loss of expression due to inactivating events in tumor suppressor genes, and expression of specific mutated proteins is now available for use in research and, when properly validated, as clinical tools to confirm or supplement molecular testing. IHC is situated at the intersection of surgical pathology and molecular diagnostic in an integrated pathology practice, where it serves as a powerful functional readout in precision medicine and an indispensable tool in the care of lung cancer patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Burke A, et al. Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus, and Heart, 4th ed. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2015.
2. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N. Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2014;511:543–550.
3. Imielinski M, Berger AH, Hammerman PS, et al. Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing. Cell. 2012;150:1107–1120.
4. Gainor JF, Varghese AM, Ou SH, et al. ALK rearrangements are mutually exclusive with mutations in EGFR or KRAS: an analysis of 1,683 patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:4273–4281.
5. Sholl LM, Aisner DL, Varella-Garcia M, et al. Multi-institutional oncogenic driver mutation analysis in lung adenocarcinoma: the lung cancer mutation consortium experience. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:768–777.
6. Aisner DL, Sholl LM, Berry LD, et al. The impact of smoking and TP53 mutations in lung adenocarcinoma patients with targetable mutations-the lung cancer mutation consortium (LCMC2). Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:1038–1047.
7. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N. Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature. 2012;489:519–525.
8. Campbell JD, Alexandrov A, Kim J, et al. Distinct patterns of somatic genome alterations in lung adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas. Nat Genet. 2016;48:607–616.
9. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Aisner DL, et al. Updated molecular testing guideline for the selection of lung cancer patients for treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the college of american pathologists, the international association for the study of lung cancer, and the association for molecular pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:321–346.
10. Sholl LM, Do K, Shivdasani P, et al. Institutional implementation of clinical tumor profiling on an unselected cancer population. JCI Insight. 2016;1:e87062.
11. Sequist LV, Waltman BA, Dias-Santagata D, et al. Genotypic and histological evolution of lung cancers acquiring resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:75ra26.
12. Lee JK, Lee J, Kim S, et al. Clonal history and genetic predictors of transformation into small-cell carcinomas from lung adenocarcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3065–3074.
13. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, et al. International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:244–285.
14. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, et al. Diagnosis of lung cancer in small biopsies and cytology: implications of the 2011 international association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society classification. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:668–684.
15. Kadota K, Nitadori J, Rekhtman N, et al. Reevaluation and reclassification of resected lung carcinomas originally diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma using immunohistochemical analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:1170–1180.
16. Comperat E, Zhang F, Perrotin C, et al. Variable sensitivity and specificity of TTF-1 antibodies in lung metastatic adenocarcinoma of colorectal origin. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:1371–1376.
17. Matoso A, Singh K, Jacob R, et al. Comparison of thyroid transcription factor-1 expression by 2 monoclonal antibodies in pulmonary and nonpulmonary primary tumors. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010;18:142–149.
18. Bisceglia M, Galliani C, Rosai J. TTF-1 expression in breast carcinoma-the chosen clone matters. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:1087–1088.
19. Ordonez NG. Value of thyroid transcription factor-1 immunostaining in tumor diagnosis: a review and update. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2012;20:429–444.
20. Klebe S, Swalling A, Jonavicius L, et al. An immunohistochemical comparison of two TTF-1 monoclonal antibodies in atypical squamous lesions and sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung, and pleural malignant mesothelioma. J Clin Pathol. 2016;69:136–141.
21. Bishop JA, Teruya-Feldstein J, Westra WH, et al. p40 (DeltaNp63) is superior to p63 for the diagnosis of pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:405–415.
22. Nonaka D. A study of DeltaNp63 expression in lung non-small cell carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:895–899.
23. Pelosi G, Fabbri A, Bianchi F, et al. DeltaNp63 (p40) and thyroid transcription factor-1 immunoreactivity on small biopsies or cellblocks for typing non-small cell lung cancer: a novel two-hit, sparing-material approach. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:281–290.
24. French CA, Miyoshi I, Aster JC, et al. BRD4 bromodomain gene rearrangement in aggressive carcinoma with translocation t(15;19). Am J Pathol. 2001;159:1987–1992.
25. French CA, Miyoshi I, Kubonishi I, et al. BRD4-NUT fusion oncogene: a novel mechanism in aggressive carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2003;63:304–307.
26. French CA, Ramirez CL, Kolmakova J, et al. BRD-NUT oncoproteins: a family of closely related nuclear proteins that block epithelial differentiation and maintain the growth of carcinoma cells. Oncogene. 2008;27:2237–2242.
27. French CA, Rahman S, Walsh EM, et al. NSD3-NUT fusion oncoprotein in NUT midline carcinoma: implications for a novel oncogenic mechanism. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:928–941.
28. French CA, Kutok JL, Faquin WC, et al. Midline carcinoma of children and young adults with NUT rearrangement. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4135–4139.
29. Stelow EB, Bellizzi AM, Taneja K, et al. NUT rearrangement in undifferentiated carcinomas of the upper aerodigestive tract. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:828–834.
30. Evans AG, French CA, Cameron MJ, et al. Pathologic characteristics of NUT midline carcinoma arising in the mediastinum. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:1222–1227.
31. Bauer DE, Mitchell CM, Strait KM, et al. Clinicopathologic features and long-term outcomes of NUT midline carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:5773–5779.
32. Lemelle L, Pierron G, Freneaux P, et al. NUT carcinoma in children and adults: A multicenter retrospective study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64:e26693.
33. Stathis A, Zucca E, Bekradda M, et al. Clinical response of carcinomas harboring the BRD4-NUT oncoprotein to the targeted bromodomain inhibitor OTX015/MK-8628. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:492–500.
34. Stathis A, Bertoni F. BET proteins as targets for anticancer treatment. Cancer Discov. 2018;8:24–36.
35. Sholl LM, Nishino M, Pokharel S, et al. Primary pulmonary NUT midline carcinoma: clinical, radiographic, and pathologic characterizations. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:951–959.
36. Haack H, Johnson LA, Fry CJ, et al. Diagnosis of NUT midline carcinoma using a NUT-specific monoclonal antibody. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:984–991.
37. Kadoch C, Hargreaves DC, Hodges C, et al. Proteomic and bioinformatic analysis of mammalian SWI/SNF complexes identifies extensive roles in human malignancy. Nat Genet. 2013;45:592–601.
38. Shain AH, Pollack JR. The spectrum of SWI/SNF mutations, ubiquitous in human cancers. PLoS One. 2013;8:e55119.
39. Karlsson A, Jonsson M, Lauss M, et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of lung carcinoma reveals one neuroendocrine and four adenocarcinoma epitypes associated with patient outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:6127–6140.
40. Jelinic P, Mueller JJ, Olvera N, et al. Recurrent SMARCA4 mutations in small cell carcinoma of the ovary. Nat Genet. 2014;46:424–426.
41. Witkowski L, Carrot-Zhang J, Albrecht S, et al. Germline and somatic SMARCA4 mutations characterize small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type. Nat Genet. 2014;46:438–443.
42. Ramos P, Karnezis AN, Craig DW, et al. Small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, displays frequent inactivating germline and somatic mutations in SMARCA4. Nat Genet. 2014;46:427–429.
43. Schneppenheim R, Fruhwald MC, Gesk S, et al. Germline nonsense mutation and somatic inactivation of SMARCA4/BRG1 in a family with rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;86:279–284.
44. Hasselblatt M, Gesk S, Oyen F, et al. Nonsense mutation and inactivation of SMARCA4 (BRG1) in an atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor showing retained SMARCB1 (INI1) expression. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:933–935.
45. Kohashi K, Yamamoto H, Yamada Y, et al. SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex status in SMARCB1/INI1-preserved epithelioid sarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42:312–318.
46. Strehl JD, Wachter DL, Fiedler J, et al. Pattern of SMARCB1 (INI1) and SMARCA4 (BRG1) in poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus: analysis of a series with emphasis on a novel SMARCA4-deficient dedifferentiated rhabdoid variant. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2015;19:198–202.
47. Agaimy A, Daum O, Markl B, et al. SWI/SNF complex-deficient undifferentiated/rhabdoid carcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract: a series of 13 cases highlighting mutually exclusive loss of SMARCA4 and SMARCA2 and frequent co-inactivation of SMARCB1 and SMARCA2. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:544–553.
48. Agaimy A, Bertz S, Cheng L, et al. Loss of expression of the SWI/SNF complex is a frequent event in undifferentiated/dedifferentiated urothelial carcinoma of the urinary tract. Virchows Arch. 2016;469:321–330.
49. Agaimy A, Weichert W. SMARCA4-deficient Sinonasal Carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol. 2017;11:541–545.
50. Karnezis AN, Hoang LN, Coatham M, et al. Loss of switch/sucrose non-fermenting complex protein expression is associated with dedifferentiation in endometrial carcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:302–314.
51. Karanian-Philippe M, Velasco V, Longy M, et al. SMARCA4 (BRG1) loss of expression is a useful marker for the diagnosis of ovarian small cell carcinoma of the hypercalcemic type (ovarian rhabdoid tumor): a comprehensive analysis of 116 rare gynecologic tumors, 9 soft tissue tumors, and 9 melanomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:1197–1205.
52. Matsubara D, Kishaba Y, Ishikawa S, et al. Lung cancer with loss of BRG1/BRM, shows epithelial mesenchymal transition phenotype and distinct histologic and genetic features. Cancer Sci. 2013;104:266–273.
53. Yoshimoto T, Matsubara D, Nakano T, et al. Frequent loss of the expression of multiple subunits of the SWI/SNF complex in large cell carcinoma and pleomorphic carcinoma of the lung. Pathol Int. 2015;65:595–602.
54. Le Loarer F, Watson S, Pierron G, et al. SMARCA4 inactivation defines a group of undifferentiated thoracic malignancies transcriptionally related to BAF-deficient sarcomas. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1200–1205.
55. Yoshida A, Kobayashi E, Kubo T, et al. Clinicopathological and molecular characterization of SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcomas with comparison to potentially related entities. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:797–809.
56. Sauter JL, Graham RP, Larsen BT, et al. SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma: a distinctive clinicopathological entity with undifferentiated rhabdoid morphology and aggressive behavior. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:1422–1432.
57. Agaimy A, Fuchs F, Moskalev EA, et al. SMARCA4-deficient pulmonary adenocarcinoma: clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular characteristics of a novel aggressive neoplasm with a consistent TTF1(neg)/CK7(pos)/HepPar-1(pos) immunophenotype. Virchows Arch. 2017;471:599–609.
58. Herpel E, Rieker RJ, Dienemann H, et al. SMARCA4 and SMARCA2 deficiency in non-small cell lung cancer: immunohistochemical survey of 316 consecutive specimens. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2017;26:47–51.
59. Hollmann TJ, Hornick JL. INI1-deficient tumors: diagnostic features and molecular genetics. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:e47–e63.
60. Schaefer IM, Agaimy A, Fletcher CD, et al. Claudin-4 expression distinguishes SWI/SNF complex-deficient undifferentiated carcinomas from sarcomas. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:539–548.
61. Bell EH, Chakraborty AR, Mo X, et al. SMARCA4/BRG1 Is a novel prognostic biomarker predictive of cisplatin-based chemotherapy outcomes in resected non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:2396–2404.
62. Fillmore CM, Xu C, Desai PT, et al. EZH2 inhibition sensitizes BRG1 and EGFR mutant lung tumours to TopoII inhibitors. Nature. 2015;520:239–242.
63. Morris SW, Kirstein MN, Valentine MB, et al. Fusion of a kinase gene, ALK, to a nucleolar protein gene, NPM, in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Science. 1994;263:1281–1284.
64. Stransky N, Cerami E, Schalm S, et al. The landscape of kinase fusions in cancer. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4846.
65. Ross JS, Ali SM, Fasan O, et al. ALK fusions in a wide variety of tumor types respond to anti-alk targeted therapy. Oncologist. 2017;22:1444–1450.
66. Hung YP, Dong F, Watkins JC, et al. Identification of ALK rearrangements in malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:235–238.
67. Soda M, Choi YL, Enomoto M, et al. Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature. 2007;448:561–566.
68. Rikova K, Guo A, Zeng Q, et al. Global survey of phosphotyrosine signaling identifies oncogenic kinases in lung cancer. Cell. 2007;131:1190–1203.
69. Takeuchi K, Soda M, Togashi Y, et al. RET, ROS1 and ALK fusions in lung cancer. Nat Med. 2012;18:378–381.
70. Noh KW, Lee MS, Lee SE, et al. Molecular breakdown: a comprehensive view of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. J Pathol. 2017;243:307–319.
71. Scarpino S, Rampioni Vinciguerra GL, Di Napoli A, et al. High prevalence of ALK+/ROS1+ cases in pulmonary adenocarcinoma of adoloscents and young adults. Lung Cancer. 2016;97:95–98.
72. Tanaka K, Hida T, Oya Y, et al. Unique prevalence of oncogenic genetic alterations in young patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2017;123:1731–1740.
73. Rodig SJ, Mino-Kenudson M, Dacic S, et al. Unique clinicopathologic features characterize ALK-rearranged lung adenocarcinoma in the western population. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:5216–5223.
74. Inamura K, Takeuchi K, Togashi Y, et al. EML4-ALK lung cancers are characterized by rare other mutations, a TTF-1 cell lineage, an acinar histology, and young onset. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:508–515.
75. Kwak EL, Bang YJ, Camidge DR, et al. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1693–1703.
76. Yoshida A, Tsuta K, Nakamura H, et al. Comprehensive histologic analysis of ALK-rearranged lung carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:1226–1234.
77. Solomon BJ, Mok T, Kim DW, et al. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2167–2177.
78. Hida T, Nokihara H, Kondo M, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (J-ALEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;390:29–39.
79. Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:829–838.
80. Shaw AT, Kim DW, Mehra R, et al. Ceritinib in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1189–1197.
81. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB, et al. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:828–860.
82. Martelli MP, Sozzi G, Hernandez L, et al. EML4-ALK rearrangement in non-small cell lung cancer and non-tumor lung tissues. Am J Pathol. 2009;174:661–670.
83. Mino-Kenudson M, Chirieac LR, Law K, et al. A novel, highly sensitive antibody allows for the routine detection of ALK-rearranged lung adenocarcinomas by standard immunohistochemistry. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1561–1571.
84. Sholl LM, Weremowicz S, Gray SW, et al. Combined use of ALK immunohistochemistry and FISH for optimal detection of ALK-rearranged lung adenocarcinomas. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8:322–328.
85. Marchetti A, Di Lorito A, Pace MV, et al. ALK protein analysis by IHC staining after recent regulatory changes: a comparison of two widely used approaches, revision of the literature, and a new testing algorithm. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:487–495.
86. Lo Russo G, Imbimbo M, Corrao G, et al. Concomitant EML4-ALK rearrangement and EGFR mutation in non-small cell lung cancer patients: a literature review of 100 cases. Oncotarget. 2017;8:59889–59900.
87. Birchmeier C, Sharma S, Wigler M. Expression and rearrangement of the ROS1 gene in human glioblastoma cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1987;84:9270–9274.
88. Bergethon K, Shaw AT, Ou SH, et al. ROS1 rearrangements define a unique molecular class of lung cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:863–870.
89. Rimkunas VM, Crosby KE, Li D, et al. Analysis of receptor tyrosine kinase ROS1-positive tumors in non-small cell lung cancer: identification of a FIG-ROS1 fusion. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:4449–4457.
90. Sholl LM, Sun H, Butaney M, et al. ROS1 immunohistochemistry for detection of ROS1-rearranged lung adenocarcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1441–1449.
91. Cai W, Li X, Su C, et al. ROS1 fusions in Chinese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1822–1827.
92. Go H, Kim DW, Kim D, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer and proposal of a diagnostic algorithm. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8:1445–1450.
93. Chen YF, Hsieh MS, Wu SG, et al. Clinical and the prognostic characteristics of lung adenocarcinoma patients with ROS1 fusion in comparison with other driver mutations in East Asian populations. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9:1171–1179.
94. Suehara Y, Arcila M, Wang L, et al. Identification of KIF5B-RET and GOPC-ROS1 fusions in lung adenocarcinomas through a comprehensive mRNA-based screen for tyrosine kinase fusions. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:6599–6608.
95. Dugay F, Llamas-Gutierrez F, Gournay M, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of ROS1- and RET-rearranged NSCLC in caucasian patients: data from a cohort of 713 non-squamous NSCLC lacking KRAS/EGFR/HER2/BRAF/PIK3CA/ALK alterations. Oncotarget. 2017;8:53336–53351.
96. Warth A, Muley T, Dienemann H, et al. ROS1 expression and translocations in non-small-cell lung cancer: clinicopathological analysis of 1478 cases. Histopathology. 2014;65:187–194.
97. Yoshida A, Tsuta K, Wakai S, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of ROS1 is useful for identifying ROS1 rearrangements in lung cancers. Mod Pathol. 2014;27:711–720.
98. Shaw AT, Ou SH, Bang YJ, et al. Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1963–1971.
99. Mescam-Mancini L, Lantuejoul S, Moro-Sibilot D, et al. On the relevance of a testing algorithm for the detection of ROS1-rearranged lung adenocarcinomas. Lung Cancer. 2014;83:168–173.
100. Shan L, Lian F, Guo L, et al. Detection of ROS1 gene rearrangement in lung adenocarcinoma: comparison of IHC, FISH and real-time RT-PCR. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0120422.
101. Selinger CI, Li BT, Pavlakis N, et al. Screening for ROS1 gene rearrangements in non-small-cell lung cancers using immunohistochemistry with FISH confirmation is an effective method to identify this rare target. Histopathology. 2017;70:402–411.
102. Su Y, Goncalves T, Dias-Santagata D, et al. Immunohistochemical Detection of ROS1 Fusion. Am J Clin Pathol. 2017;147:77–82.
103. Zhao J, Chen X, Zheng J, et al. A genomic and clinicopathological study of non-small-cell lung cancers with discordant ROS1 gene status by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation and immunohistochemical analysis. Histopathology. 2018;73:19–28.
104. Postow MA, Callahan MK, Wolchok JD. Immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1974–1982.
105. Sacher AG, Gandhi L. Biomarkers for the clinical use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:1217–1222.
106. Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A, et al. Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science. 2015;348:124–128.
107. Rizvi H, Sanchez-Vega F, La K, et al. Molecular determinants of response to anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer profiled with targeted next-generation sequencing. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:633–641.
108. Yarchoan M, Hopkins A, Jaffee EM. Tumor mutational burden and response rate to PD-1 inhibition. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2500–2501.
109. Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science. 2017;357:409–413.
110. Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz-Ares L, et al. First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2415–2426.
111. Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R, et al. Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2018–2028.
112. Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1823–1833.
113. Gandhi L, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Gadgeel S, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2078–2092.
114. Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:123–135.
115. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1627–1639.
116. Gettinger SN, Horn L, Gandhi L, et al. Overall survival and long-term safety of nivolumab (anti-programmed death 1 antibody, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2004–2012.
117. Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389:255–265.
118. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1540–1550.
119. Gainor JF, Shaw AT, Sequist LV, et al. EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements are associated with low response rates to PD-1 Pathway blockade in non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:4585–4593.
120. Lee CK, Man J, Lord S, et al. Clinical and molecular characteristics associated with survival among patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:210–216.
121. Tsao MS, Le Teuff G, Shepherd FA, et al. PD-L1 protein expression assessed by immunohistochemistry is neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in resected non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:882–889.
122. Forde PM, Chaft JE, Smith KN, et al. Neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1976–1986.
123. Cooper WA, Russell PA, Cherian M, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility assessment of PD-L1 biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:4569–4577.
124. Peters S, Gettinger S, Johnson ML, et al. Phase II trial of atezolizumab as first-line or subsequent therapy for patients with programmed death-ligand 1-selected advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (BIRCH). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2781–2789.
125. Rimm DL, Han G, Taube JM, et al. A prospective, multi-institutional, pathologist-based assessment of 4 immunohistochemistry assays for PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1051–1058.
126. Hirsch FR, McElhinny A, Stanforth D, et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays for lung cancer: results from phase 1 of the blueprint PD-L1 IHC assay comparison project. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12:208–222.
127. McLaughlin J, Han G, Schalper KA, et al. Quantitative assessment of the heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression in non-small-cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:46–54.
128. Mahoney KM, Sun H, Liao X, et al. PD-L1 antibodies to its cytoplasmic domain most clearly delineate cell membranes in immunohistochemical staining of tumor cells. Cancer Immunol Res. 2015;3:1308–1315.
129. Gaule P, Smithy JW, Toki M, et al. A quantitative comparison of antibodies to programmed cell death 1 ligand 1. JAMA Oncol. 2016;3:256–259.
130. Parra ER, Villalobos P, Mino B, et al. Comparison of different antibody clones for immunohistochemistry detection of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on non-small cell lung carcinoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2018;26:83–93.
131. Buttner R, Gosney JR, Skov BG, et al. Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Immunohistochemistry testing: a review of analytical assays and clinical implementation in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3867–3876.
132. Russell-Goldman E, Kravets S, Dahlberg SE, et al. Cytologic-histologic correlation of programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry in lung carcinomas. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126:253–263.
133. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2129–2139.
134. Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science. 2004;304:1497–1500.
135. Pao W, Miller V, Zakowski M, et al. EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:13306–13311.
136. Shigematsu H, Lin L, Takahashi T, et al. Clinical and biological features associated with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations in lung cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:339–346.
137. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:947–957.
138. Shi Y, Au JS, Thongprasert S, et al. A prospective, molecular epidemiology study of EGFR mutations in Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology (PIONEER). J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9:154–162.
139. Yatabe Y, Kosaka T, Takahashi T, et al. EGFR mutation is specific for terminal respiratory unit type adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:633–639.
140. Yoshida Y, Shibata T, Kokubu A, et al. Mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in atypical adenomatous hyperplasia and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma of the lung. Lung Cancer. 2005;50:1–8.
141. Ohtsuka K, Ohnishi H, Fujiwara M, et al. Abnormalities of epidermal growth factor receptor in lung squamous-cell carcinomas, adenosquamous carcinomas, and large-cell carcinomas: tyrosine kinase domain mutations are not rare in tumors with an adenocarcinoma component. Cancer. 2007;109:741–750.
142. Kang SM, Kang HJ, Shin JH, et al. Identical epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in adenocarcinomatous and squamous cell carcinomatous components of adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung. Cancer. 2007;109:581–587.
143. Sharma SV, Bell DW, Settleman J, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:169–181.
144. Bell DW, Gore I, Okimoto RA, et al. Inherited susceptibility to lung cancer may be associated with the T790M drug resistance mutation in EGFR. Nat Genet. 2005;37:1315–1316.
145. Hu Y, Alden RS, Odegaard JI, et al. Discrimination of germline EGFR T790M mutations in plasma cell-free dna allows study of prevalence across 31,414 cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:7351–7359.
146. Hsu WH, Yang JC, Mok TS, et al. Overview of current systemic management of EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:i3–i9.
147. Ramalingam SS, Yang JC, Lee CK, et al. Osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:841–849.
148. Sholl LM, Xiao Y, Joshi V, et al. EGFR mutation is a better predictor of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung carcinoma than FISH, CISH, and immunohistochemistry. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;133:922–934.
149. Yu J, Kane S, Wu J, et al. Mutation-specific antibodies for the detection of EGFR mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:3023–3028.
150. Kitamura A, Hosoda W, Sasaki E, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of EGFR mutation using mutation-specific antibodies in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:3349–3355.
151. Kato Y, Peled N, Wynes MW, et al. Novel epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-specific antibodies for non-small cell lung cancer: immunohistochemistry as a possible screening method for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:1551–1558.
152. Brevet M, Arcila M, Ladanyi M. Assessment of EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinoma by immunohistochemistry using antibodies specific to the two major forms of mutant EGFR. J Mol Diagn. 2010;12:169–176.
153. Bondgaard AL, Hogdall E, Mellemgaard A, et al. High specificity but low sensitivity of mutation-specific antibodies against EGFR mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer. Mod Pathol. 2014;27:1590–1598.
154. Seo AN, Park TI, Jin Y, et al. Novel EGFR mutation-specific antibodies for lung adenocarcinoma: highly specific but not sensitive detection of an E746_A750 deletion in exon 19 and an L858R mutation in exon 21 by immunohistochemistry. Lung Cancer. 2014;83:316–323.
155. Ragazzi M, Tamagnini I, Bisagni A, et al. Diamond: immunohistochemistry versus sequencing in EGFR analysis of lung adenocarcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 2016;69:440–447.
156. Hitij NT, Kern I, Sadikov A, et al. Immunohistochemistry for EGFR mutation detection in non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2017;18:e187–e196.
157. Graham RP, Treece AL, Lindeman NI, et al. Worldwide frequency of commonly detected EGFR mutations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:163–167.
158. Paik PK, Arcila ME, Fara M, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with lung adenocarcinomas harboring BRAF mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2046–2051.
159. Marchetti A, Felicioni L, Malatesta S, et al. Clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring BRAF mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3574–3579.
160. Cardarella S, Ogino A, Nishino M, et al. Clinical, pathologic, and biologic features associated with BRAF mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:4532–4540.
161. Litvak AM, Paik PK, Woo KM, et al. Clinical characteristics and course of 63 patients with BRAF mutant lung cancers. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9:1669–1674.
162. De Oliveira Duarte Achcar R, Nikiforova MN, Yousem SA. Micropapillary lung adenocarcinoma: EGFR, K-ras, and BRAF mutational profile. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131:694–700.
163. Planchard D, Besse B, Groen HJM, et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously treated BRAF(V600E)-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:984–993.
164. Planchard D, Kim TM, Mazieres J, et al. Dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:642–650.
165. Ritterhouse LL, Barletta JA. BRAF V600E mutation-specific antibody: a review. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2015;32:400–408.
166. Adackapara CA, Sholl LM, Barletta JA, et al. Immunohistochemistry using the BRAF V600E mutation-specific monoclonal antibody VE1 is not a useful surrogate for genotyping in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Histopathology. 2013;63:187–193.
167. Sasaki H, Shimizu S, Tani Y, et al. Usefulness of immunohistochemistry for the detection of the BRAF V600E mutation in Japanese lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2013;82:51–54.
168. Ilie M, Long E, Hofman V, et al. Diagnostic value of immunohistochemistry for the detection of the BRAFV600E mutation in primary lung adenocarcinoma Caucasian patients. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:742–748.
169. Grieco M, Santoro M, Berlingieri MT, et al. PTC is a novel rearranged form of the ret proto-oncogene and is frequently detected in vivo in human thyroid papillary carcinomas. Cell. 1990;60:557–563.
170. Ju YS, Lee WC, Shin JY, et al. A transforming KIF5B and RET gene fusion in lung adenocarcinoma revealed from whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing. Genome Res. 2012;22:436–445.
171. Kohno T, Ichikawa H, Totoki Y, et al. KIF5B-RET fusions in lung adenocarcinoma. Nat Med. 2012;18:375–377.
172. Wang R, Hu H, Pan Y, et al. RET fusions define a unique molecular and clinicopathologic subtype of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4352–4359.
173. Lipson D, Capelletti M, Yelensky R, et al. Identification of new ALK and RET gene fusions from colorectal and lung cancer biopsies. Nat Med. 2012;18:382–384.
174. Tsuta K, Kohno T, Yoshida A, et al. RET-rearranged non-small-cell lung carcinoma: a clinicopathological and molecular analysis. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:1571–1578.
175. Kohno T, Nakaoku T, Tsuta K, et al. Beyond ALK-RET, ROS1 and other oncogene fusions in lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2015;4:156–164.
176. Drilon A, Hu ZI, Lai GGY, et al. Targeting RET-driven cancers: lessons from evolving preclinical and clinical landscapes. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15:151–167.
177. Gautschi O, Milia J, Filleron T, et al. Targeting RET in patients with RET-rearranged lung cancers: results from the global, multicenter RET registry. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1403–1410.
178. Drilon A, Wang L, Hasanovic A, et al. Response to cabozantinib in patients with RET fusion-positive lung adenocarcinomas. Cancer Discov. 2013;3:630–635.
179. Drilon A, Rekhtman N, Arcila M, et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced RET-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, single-centre, phase 2, single-arm trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1653–1660.
180. Lee SH, Lee JK, Ahn MJ, et al. Vandetanib in pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer-harboring RET rearrangement: a phase II clinical trial. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:292–297.
181. Yoh K, Seto T, Satouchi M, et al. Vandetanib in patients with previously treated RET-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (LURET): an open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5:42–50.
182. Lee SE, Lee B, Hong M, et al. Comprehensive analysis of RET and ROS1 rearrangement in lung adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:468–479.
183. Mackinnon AC Jr, Luevano A, de Araujo LC, et al. Cribriform adenocarcinoma of the lung: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis of 15 cases of a distinctive morphologic subtype of lung adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2014;27:1063–1072.
184. Sasaki H, Shimizu S, Tani Y, et al. RET expression and detection of KIF5B/RET gene rearrangements in Japanese lung cancer. Cancer Med. 2012;1:68–75.
185. Go H, Jung YJ, Kang HW, et al. Diagnostic method for the detection of KIF5B-RET transformation in lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2013;82:44–50.
186. Farago AF, Le LP, Zheng Z, et al. Durable clinical response to entrectinib in NTRK1-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:1670–1674.
187. Vaishnavi A, Capelletti M, Le AT, et al. Oncogenic and drug-sensitive NTRK1 rearrangements in lung cancer. Nat Med. 2013;19:1469–1472.
188. Drilon A, Laetsch TW, Kummar S, et al. Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:731–739.
189. Hechtman JF, Benayed R, Hyman DM, et al. Pan-Trk immunohistochemistry is an efficient and reliable screen for the detection of NTRK fusions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:1547–1551.
190. Ji H, Ramsey MR, Hayes DN, et al. LKB1 modulates lung cancer differentiation and metastasis. Nature. 2007;448:807–810.
191. Koivunen JP, Kim J, Lee J, et al. Mutations in the LKB1 tumour suppressor are frequently detected in tumours from caucasian but not asian lung cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:245–252.
192. Ding L, Getz G, Wheeler DA, et al. Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2008;455:1069–1075.
193. Calles A, Sholl LM, Rodig SJ, et al. Immunohistochemical Loss of LKB1 Is a biomarker for more aggressive biology in KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:2851–2860.
194. Ghaffar H, Sahin F, Sanchez-Cepedes M, et al. LKB1 protein expression in the evolution of glandular neoplasia of the lung. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:2998–3003.
195. Stephens P, Hunter C, Bignell G, et al. Lung cancer: intragenic ERBB2 kinase mutations in tumours. Nature. 2004;431:525–526.
196. Shigematsu H, Takahashi T, Nomura M, et al. Somatic mutations of the HER2 kinase domain in lung adenocarcinomas. Cancer Res. 2005;65:1642–1646.
197. Arcila ME, Chaft JE, Nafa K, et al. Prevalence, clinicopathologic associations, and molecular spectrum of ERBB2 (HER2) tyrosine kinase mutations in lung adenocarcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:4910–4918.
198. Li C, Sun Y, Fang R, et al. Lung adenocarcinomas with HER2-activating mutations are associated with distinct clinical features and HER2/EGFR copy number gains. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:85–89.
199. Mazieres J, Peters S, Lepage B, et al. Lung cancer that harbors an HER2 mutation: epidemiologic characteristics and therapeutic perspectives. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1997–2003.
200. Barlesi F, Mazieres J, Merlio JP, et al. Routine molecular profiling of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a 1-year nationwide programme of the French Cooperative thoracic intergroup (IFCT). Lancet. 2016;387:1415–1426.
201. Ou SI, Schrock AB, Bocharov EV, et al. HER2 transmembrane domain (TMD) mutations (V659/G660) That stabilize homo- and heterodimerization are rare oncogenic drivers in lung adenocarcinoma that respond to afatinib. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12:446–457.
202. Takezawa K, Pirazzoli V, Arcila ME, et al. HER2 amplification: a potential mechanism of acquired resistance to EGFR inhibition in EGFR-mutant lung cancers that lack the second-site EGFRT790M mutation. Cancer Discov. 2012;2:922–933.
203. Li BT, Ross DS, Aisner DL, et al. HER2 amplification and HER2 mutation are distinct molecular targets in lung cancers. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:414–419.
204. Gandhi L, Bahleda R, Tolaney SM, et al. Phase I study of neratinib in combination with temsirolimus in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-dependent and other solid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:68–75.
205. Mishra R, Hanker AB, Garrett JT. Genomic alterations of ERBB receptors in cancer: clinical implications. Oncotarget. 2017;8:114371–114392.
206. Benedettini E, Sholl LM, Peyton M, et al. Met activation in non-small cell lung cancer is associated with de novo resistance to EGFR inhibitors and the development of brain metastasis. Am J Pathol. 2010;177:415–423.
207. Ma PC, Jagadeeswaran R, Jagadeesh S, et al. Functional expression and mutations of c-Met and its therapeutic inhibition with SU11274 and small interfering RNA in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2005;65:1479–1488.
208. Awad MM, Oxnard GR, Jackman DM, et al. MET Exon 14 mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer are associated with advanced age and stage-dependent MET genomic amplification and c-Met overexpression. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:721–730.
209. Schrock AB, Frampton GM, Suh J, et al. Characterization of 298 patients with lung cancer harboring MET Exon 14 skipping alterations. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:1493–1502.
210. Tong JH, Yeung SF, Chan AW, et al. MET amplification and exon 14 splice site mutation define unique molecular subgroups of non-small cell lung carcinoma with poor prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:3048–3056.
211. Liu X, Jia Y, Stoopler MB, et al. Next-generation sequencing of pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma reveals high frequency of actionable MET gene mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:794–802.
212. Frampton GM, Ali SM, Rosenzweig M, et al. Activation of MET via diverse exon 14 splicing alterations occurs in multiple tumor types and confers clinical sensitivity to MET inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 2015;5:850–859.
213. Paik PK, Drilon A, Fan PD, et al. Response to MET inhibitors in patients with stage IV lung adenocarcinomas harboring MET mutations causing exon 14 skipping. Cancer Discov. 2015;5:842–849.
Keywords:

non–small cell lung carcinoma; immunohistochemistry; biomarker; NUT; SMARCA4; ALK; ROS1; PD-L1; BRAF

Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.