Immunohistochemistry using the BRAF V600E mutation-specific monoclonal antibody VE1 is not a useful surrogate for genotyping in colorectal adenocarcinoma

BRAFV600E immunohistochemistry can reliably substitute BRAF molecular testing in the Lynch syndrome screening algorithm in colorectal cancer

AIMS

The Lynch syndrome (LS) screening algorithm requires BRAF testing as a fundamental step to distinguish sporadic from LS-associated colorectal carcinomas (CRC). BRAF testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) has shown variable results in the literature. Our aim was to analyse concordance between BRAFV600E IHC and BRAF molecular analysis in a large, mono-institutional CRC whole-slide, case series with laboratory validation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MisMatch repair (MMR) protein (hMLH1, hPMS2, hMSH2, and hMSH6) and BRAFV600E IHC were performed on all unselected cases of surgically resected CRCs (2018-2023). An in-house validation study for BRAFV600E IHC was performed in order to obtain optimal IHC stains. BRAFVV600E IHC was considered negative (score 0), positive (scores 2-3), and equivocal (score 1). Interobserver differences in BRAFV600E IHC scoring were noted in the first 150 cases prospectively collected. Nine-hundred and ninety CRCs cases (830 proficient (p)MMR/160 deficient (d)MMR) were included and all cases performed BRAFV600E IHC (BRAFV600E IHC-positive 13.5% of all series; 66.3% dMMR cases; 3.4% pMMR cases), while 333 also went to BRAF mutation analysis. Optimal agreement in IHC scoring between pathologists (P < 0.0001) was seen; concordance between BRAFV600E IHC and BRAF molecular analysis was extremely high (sensitivity 99.1%, specificity 99.5%; PPV 99.1%, and NPV 99.5%). Discordant cases were reevaluated; 1 score 3 + IHC/wildtype case was an interpretation error and one score 0 IHC/mutated case was related to heterogenous BRAFV600E IHC expression. Among the 12 IHC-equivocal score 1+ cases (which require BRAF molecular analysis), three were BRAF-mutated and nine BRAF-wildtype.

CONCLUSION

BRAFV600E IHC can be used as a reliable surrogate of molecular testing after stringent in-house validation.

Factors affecting the accuracy of anti-BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry results in ameloblastomas

BACKGROUND

There are still some controversies about the results of anti-BRAF V600E-specific antibody immunohistochemistry in ameloblastomas. This study aimed to examine the accuracy of V600E-specific antibody immunohistochemistry in detection of BRAF V600E mutation in ameloblastoma tissue sections of different ages.

METHODS

The BRAF V600E status of 64 ameloblastoma specimens was assessed using both Sanger sequencing and V600E-specific antibody immunohistochemistry, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. The difference in V600E-specific antibody immunohistochemistry staining intensity among the three groups of ameloblastoma tissue blocks of different ages was evaluated by chi-square test. The consistency between V600E-specific antibody immunohistochemistry and DNA sequencing results and the V600E-specific antibody immunohistochemistry staining intensity of 15 paired newly-cut and 3-month storage sections of the same 15 ameloblastomas were also compared.

RESULTS

For detection of BRAF V600E mutation, the V600E-specific antibody immunohistochemistry had high sensitivity (98.21% 55/56), specificity (87.5% 7/8), positive predictive value (98.21% 55/56), and negative predictive value (87.5% 7/8). Heterogeneity of the staining intensity was observed in the same tissue section, but all or none expression pattern was noticed in the solid tumor nests. The storage time of paraffin tissue blocks ranging from 2 to 14 years did not affect the V600E-specific antibody-positive staining intensity. However, the three-month storage sections showed a significant diminishment of V600E-specific antibody-positive staining signals.

CONCLUSIONS

The BRAF V600E-specific antibody immunohistochemistry is suitable for routine detection of BRAF V600E mutation in ameloblastomas. The all or none expression pattern suggests the BRAF V600E mutation may be an early event in the pathogenesis of ameloblastoma.

BRAF-mutated colorectal adenocarcinomas: pathological heterogeneity and clinical implications

Advances in molecular biology have markedly increased our understanding of the heterogeneous molecular landscape of colorectal cancer (CRC). Up to 15% of CRCs harbor the BRAF p.V600E somatic mutation (BRAFmt), a well-established negative prognostic marker in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). The BEACON CRC trial set a new standard of care in patients with progressive BRAFmt cancers, consisting of the combination of encorafenib and cetuximab. On these bases, BRAF mutational testing is now recommended in patients with mCRC. However, efforts are needed to further stratify patients carrying this mutation. Here, we discuss the heterogeneous pathologic and molecular landscape of BRAFmt CRCs, focusing on the promises and pitfalls of molecular diagnostics, on novel biomarkers to improve patients' stratification and on the current diagnostic scenario for CRC. We believe that a better stratification based on histopathological features and novel molecular biomarkers should be performed to optimize patient management and therapeutic decision-making.

Diagnosis of Lynch Syndrome and Strategies to Distinguish Lynch-Related Tumors from Sporadic MSI/dMMR Tumors

Simple Summary

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a hallmark of Lynch syndrome (LS)-related tumors but is not specific, as most of MSI/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors are sporadic. Therefore, the identification of MSI/dMMR requires additional diagnostic tools to identify LS. In this review, we address the hallmarks of LS and present recent advances in diagnostic and screening strategies to identify LS patients. We also discuss the pitfalls associated with current strategies, which should be taken into account in order to improve the diagnosis of LS.

Abstract

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a hallmark of Lynch syndrome (LS)-related tumors but is not specific to it, as approximately 80% of MSI/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors are sporadic. Methods leading to the diagnosis of LS have considerably evolved in recent years and so have tumoral tests for LS screening and for the discrimination of LS-related to MSI-sporadic tumors. In this review, we address the hallmarks of LS, including the clinical, histopathological, and molecular features. We present recent advances in diagnostic and screening strategies to identify LS patients. We also discuss the pitfalls associated with the current strategies, which should be taken into account to improve the diagnosis of LS and avoid inappropriate clinical management.

Preliminary Study on the Identification of BRAFV600E Mutation in Colorectal Cancer by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Introduction

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the B-type Raf kinase (BRAF)^V600E mutation is a molecular biomarker of poor prognosis and is of great importance to drug target. Currently, the commonly used methods for detecting BRAF^V600E mutation include immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene sequencing, but both present certain limitations. Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is a spectroscopy technology that takes advantage of the electromagnetic wavelength between visible light and mid-infrared light.

Methods

IHC was used to detect the expression of BRAF^V600E protein with the BRAF^V600E (VE1) antibody in 42 cases of paraffin-embedded (FFPE) mCRC tissue sections. The NIR-discriminant analysis model (NIRS-DA) was established using 6 cases of wild-type and 6 cases of mutant-type BRAF specimens.

Results

IHC detection results revealed 13 cases of weakly positive (+), 1 case of moderately positive (++), and 28 cases of negative (-) CRC. Compared with the next-generation sequencing (NGS) results, the positive rate was 66.7%. The classification accuracy of calibration (CAC) was 100% compared with the results of NGS, demonstrating that the BRAF^V600E mutant NIRS-DA model, verified by 2 cases of wild-type and 2 cases of mutant-type CRC samples was established. The NIRS-DA model was used to predict gene mutation in the CRC samples, 7 cases were positive (+), and 35 cases were negative (-), and the classification accuracy of prediction (CAP) was 83.3% (35/42).

Discussion

The NIRS-DA model-predicted results were in high agreement with the detection results of NGS, and the difference in IHC is not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, this study is a preliminary discussion on a methodology due to its small sample size.

Cells with ganglionic differentiation frequently stain for VE1 antibody: a potential pitfall

Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway plays a major role in pediatric low-grade gliomas (pLGGs). Immunohistochemistry with mutant-specific antibody, VE1, has appeared to be the most affordable and rapidly deployable method to identify tumors with aberrant MAPK signaling pathway, by highlighting tumor with BRAF^V600E mutation. Nonetheless, positive staining cases but not associated with BRAF^V600E mutation are also seen. We analyzed 62 pLGGs for the two commonest genetic aberrations in MAPK pathway: KIAA1549-BRAF fusion, using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and BRAF^V600E mutation, using VE1 antibody and Sanger sequencing. We recorded a specificity and accuracy rate of 68.75% and 75%, respectively, for VE1, when strong cytoplasmic staining is observed. Interestingly, we observed that cells with ganglionic features frequently bind VE1 but not associated with BRAF^V600E mutation. Such observation was also confirmed in four cases of differentiating neuroblastoma. This false positive staining may serve as an important confounder in the interpretation of VE1 immunoreactivity with major therapeutic implication. It is important to confirm the presence of BRAF^V600E mutation by DNA-based method, especially in tumor entities not known to, or rarely harbor such mutations.

Molecular Diagnostics in Colorectal Carcinoma: Advances and Applications for 2018

The molecular pathogenesis and classification of colorectal carcinoma are based on the traditional adenomaecarcinoma sequence, serrated polyp pathway, and microsatellite instability (MSI). The genetic basis for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer is the detection of mutations in the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM genes. Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome includes MSI testing, methylator phenotype testing, BRAF mutation testing, and molecular testing for germline mutations in MMR genes. Molecular makers with predictive and prognostic implications include quantitative multigene reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay and KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis. Mismatch repair-deficient tumors have higher rates of programmed death-ligand 1 expression. Cell-free DNA analysis in fluids are proving beneficial for diagnosis and prognosis in these disease states towards effective patient management.

Diagnostic and Predictive Immunohistochemistry for Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinomas

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.

Utility of BRAF VE1 Immunohistochemistry as a Screening Tool for Colorectal Cancer Harboring BRAF V600E Mutation

Background

BRAF mutation has been recognized as an important biomarker of colorectal cancer (CRC) for targeted therapy and prognosis prediction. However, sequencing for every CRC case is not cost-effective. An antibody specific for BRAF V600E mutant protein has been introduced, and we thus examined the utility of BRAF VE1 immunohistochemistry for evaluating BRAF mutations in CRC.

Methods

Fifty-one BRAF-mutated CRCs and 100 age and sexmatched BRAF wild-type CRCs between 2005 and 2015 were selected from the archives of Asan Medical Center. Tissue microarrays were constructed and stained with BRAF VE1 antibody.

Results

Forty-nine of the 51 BRAF-mutant CRCs (96.1%) showed more than moderate cytoplasmic staining, except for two weakly stained cases. Six of 100 BRAF wild-type cases also stained positive with BRAF VE1 antibody; four stained weakly and two stained moderately. Normal colonic crypts showed nonspecific weak staining, and a few CRC cases exhibited moderate nuclear reactivity (3 BRAF-mutant and 10 BRAF wild-type cases). BRAF-mutated CRC patients had higher pathologic stages and worse survival than BRAF wild-type patients.

Conclusions

BRAF VE1 immunohistochemistry showed high sensitivity and specificity, but occasional nonspecific staining in tumor cell nuclei and normal colonic crypts may limit their routine clinical use. Thus, BRAF VE1 immunohistochemistry may be a useful screening tool for BRAF V600E mutation in CRCs, provided that additional sequencing studies can be done to confirm the mutation in BRAF VE1 antibody-positive cases.

Concomitant KIT/BRAF and PDGFRA/BRAF mutations are rare events in gastrointestinal stromal tumors

AIM

The BRAF mutation is a rare pathogenetic alternative to KIT/PDGFRA mutation in GIST and causes Imatinib resistance. A recent description of KIT and BRAF mutations co-occurring in an untreated GIST has challenged the concept of their being mutually exclusive and may account for ab initio resistance to Imatinib, even in the presence of Imatinib-sensitive KIT mutations. BRAF sequencing is generally limited to KIT/PDGFRA wild-type cases. Hence, the frequency of concomitant mutations may be underestimated.

METHODS

We screened for KIT (exon 9, 11, 13, 17), PDGFRA (exon 12,14, 18) and BRAF (exon 15) mutations a series of 407 GIST. Additionally, we evaluated the BRAF V600E mutation-specific antibody, VE1, as a surrogate for V600E mutation, on a series of 313 GIST (24 on whole sections, 288 cases on tissue array), including 6 cases molecularly ascertained to carry the BRAF V600E mutation.

RESULTS

No concomitant KIT/BRAF or PDGFRA/BRAF mutations were detected. BRAF mutation was detected only in one case, wild-type for KIT/PDGFRA. All the 6 BRAF-mutant cases stained positive with the VE1 antibody. A weak VE1 expression was observed in 14/287 (4.9%) BRAF wild-type cases, as observed also in 2/6 BRAF-mutant cases. Overall in our series, sensitivity and specificity of the VE1 antobody were 100% and 95.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The concomitance of BRAF mutation with either KIT or PDGFRA mutation is rare in GIST. In these tumors, moderate/strong VE1 immunoreactivity is a valuable surrogate for molecular analysis. Instead, genotyping is warranted in the presence of weak VE1 staining.

Immunohistochemistry with Anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) Mouse Monoclonal Antibody is a Sensitive Method for Detection of the BRAF V600E Mutation in Colon Cancer: Evaluation of 120 Cases with and without KRAS Mutation and Literature Review

The major aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) antibody in colorectal tumors with and without KRAS mutation. KRAS and BRAF are two major oncogenic drivers of colorectal cancer (CRC) that have been frequently described as mutually exclusive, thus the BRAF V600E mutation is not expected to be present in the cases with KRAS mutation. In addition, a review of 25 studies comparing immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) antibody with BRAF V600E molecular testing in 4041 patient samples was included. One-hundred and twenty cases with/without KRAS or BRAF mutations were acquired. The tissue were immunostained with anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) antibody with OptiView DAB IHC detection kit. The KRAS mutated cases with equivocal immunostaining were further evaluated by Sanger sequencing for BRAF V600E mutation. Thirty cases with BRAF V600E mutation showed unequivocal, diffuse, uniform, positive cytoplasmic staining and 30 cases with wild-type KRAS and BRAF showed negative staining with anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) antibody. Out of 60 cases with KRAS mutation, 56 cases (93.3%) were negative for BRAF V600E mutation by IHC. Four cases showed weak, equivocal, heterogeneous, cytoplasmic staining along with nuclear staining in 25-90% of tumor cells. These cases were confirmed to be negative for BRAF V600E mutation by Sanger sequencing. Overall, IHC with anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) antibody using recommended protocol with OptiView detection is optimal for detection of BRAF V600E mutation in CRC. Our data are consistent with previous reports indicating that KRAS and BRAF V600E mutation are mutually exclusive.

Practical Immunohistochemistry in Neoplastic Pathology of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Liver, Biliary Tract, and Pancreas

CONTEXT

- Immunomarkers with diagnostic, therapeutic, or prognostic values have been increasingly used to maximize the benefits of clinical management of patients with neoplastic diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas.

OBJECTIVES

- To review the characteristics of immunomarkers that are commonly used in surgical pathology practice for neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas, and to summarize the clinical usefulness of immunomarkers that have been discovered in recent years in these fields.

DATA SOURCES

- Data sources include literature review, authors' research data, and personal practice experience.

CONCLUSIONS

- Immunohistochemistry is an indispensable tool for the accurate diagnosis of neoplastic diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas. Useful immunomarkers are available to help distinguish malignant neoplasms from benign conditions, determine organ origins, and subclassify neoplasms that are morphologically and biologically heterogeneous. Specific immunomarkers are also available to help guide patient treatment and assess disease aggressiveness, which are keys to the success of personalized medicine. Pathologists will continue to play a critical role in the discovery, validation, and application of new biomarkers, which will ultimately improve patient care.

The current value of determining the mismatch repair status of colorectal cancer: A rationale for routine testing

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer in men and women. Up to 15% of CRCs display microsatellite instability (MSI). MSI is reflective of a deficient mismatch repair (MMR) system and is most commonly caused by hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter. However, it may also be due to autosomal dominant constitutional mutations in DNA MMR, termed Lynch Syndrome. MSI may be diagnosed via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or alternatively, immunohistochemistry (IHC) can identify MMR deficiency (dMMR). Many institutions now advocate universal tumor screening of CRC via either PCR for MSI or IHC for dMMR to guide Lynch Syndrome testing. The association of sporadic MSI with methylation of the MLH1 promoter and an activating BRAF mutation may offer further exclusion criteria for genetic testing. Aside from screening for Lynch syndrome, MMR testing is important because of its prognostic and therapeutic implications. Several studies have shown MSI CRCs exhibit different clinicopathological features and prognosis compared to microsatellite-stable (MSS) CRCs. For example, response to conventional chemotherapy has been reported to be less in MSI tumours. More recently, MSI tumours have been shown to be responsive to immune-checkpoint inhibition providing a novel therapeutic strategy. This provides a rationale for routine testing for MSI or dMMR in CRC.

Dielectrophoresis for Biomedical Sciences Applications: A Review

Dielectrophoresis (DEP) is a label-free, accurate, fast, low-cost diagnostic technique that uses the principles of polarization and the motion of bioparticles in applied electric fields. This technique has been proven to be beneficial in various fields, including environmental research, polymer research, biosensors, microfluidics, medicine and diagnostics. Biomedical science research is one of the major research areas that could potentially benefit from DEP technology for diverse applications. Nevertheless, many medical science research investigations have yet to benefit from the possibilities offered by DEP. This paper critically reviews the fundamentals, recent progress, current challenges, future directions and potential applications of research investigations in the medical sciences utilizing DEP technique. This review will also act as a guide and reference for medical researchers and scientists to explore and utilize the DEP technique in their research fields.

The use of BRAF V600E mutation-specific immunohistochemistry in pediatric Langerhans cell histiocytosis

BRAF p.V600E mutations are detected in greater than 50% of pediatric Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) lesions. However, the use of mutation-specific BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a surrogate for molecular testing in pediatric LCH is unknown. We tested the mutation-specific BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (clone VE1) in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded LCH samples from 26 pediatric patients (14 males and 12 females, ages 7 mo-17 y) using allele-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with a limit of detection of 0.5% as the comparative gold standard. BRAF VE1 staining was scored for both intensity (0-3+) and percentage of immunoreactive tumor cells (0%-100%). BRAF VE1 immunoreactivity was determined using both lenient (≥1+, ≥1%) and stringent (≥2+, ≥10%) scoring criteria. Using lenient-scoring criteria, we found that the sensitivity and specificity of IHC compared with allele-specific real-time PCR were 100.0% and 18.2%, respectively. The poor specificity of lenient IHC analysis was attributable to weak, 1+ staining in both BRAF-mutated and wild-type LCH. Using stringent-scoring criteria, we found that specificity improved to 100.0% at the expense of sensitivity that decreased to 80.0%. Stringent scoring generated 3 false-negative results, but in all cases, neoplastic tissue comprised less than 5% of the stained section and/or the specimen was decalcified. In conclusion, highly sensitive molecular assays remain the gold standard for BRAF mutation analysis in LCH paraffin-embedded lesions. To avoid false-positive results, unequivocal VE1 staining of 2+ intensity in greater than or equal to 10% neoplastic histiocytes is required. However, negative VE1 results require additional studies to exclude false-negatives, and stringent-scoring criteria may not be optimal for scant or decalcified specimens.

Immunohistochemistry with the anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) antibody: impact of pre-analytical conditions and concordance with DNA sequencing in colorectal and papillary thyroid carcinoma

Summary

The most common of all activating BRAF mutations (T1799A) leads to a substitution of valine (V) to glutamic acid (E) at the position 600 of the amino acid sequence. The major goal of this study was to compare detection of the BRAF V600E mutation by DNA sequencing with immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) antibody. Archival formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tissues from 352 patients with colon adenocarcinoma (n = 279) and papillary thyroid carcinoma (n = 73) were evaluated for the BRAF V600E mutation by sequencing and IHC. The discordant cases were re-evaluated by repeat IHC, SNaPshot and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Furthermore, the effect of pre-analytical variables on the utility of this antibody was evaluated in two xenograft mouse models.

After resolving 15 initially discordant cases, 212 cases were negative for the BRAF V600E mutation by IHC. Of these, 210 cases (99.1%) were also negative by sequencing and two cases (0.9%) remained discordant. Of the 140 cases that were IHC positive for BRAF V600E, 138 cases were confirmed by sequencing (98.6%) and two cases remained discordant (1.4%). Overall, the negative predictive value was 99.1%, positive predictive value 98.6%, sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 99.1% and overall percentage agreement 98.9% (348/352 cases). Tissue fixation studies indicated that tissues should be fixed for 12–24 h within 2 h of tissue collection with 10% neutral buffered formalin.

Immunohistochemical staining for p16 and BRAFV600E is useful to distinguish between sporadic and hereditary (Lynch syndrome-related) microsatellite instable colorectal carcinomas

DNA mismatch repair (MMR) protein analysis by immunohistochemistry (IHC) can identify colorectal cancer (CRC) with microsatellite instability (MSI). As MLH1-deficient CRC can be hereditary or sporadic, markers to distinguish between them are needed. MLH1 promoter methylation assay is the reference method; however, sometimes, it is challenging on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed by IHC the expression of BRAFV600E, p16, MGMT, and CDX2 in 55 MLH1-deficient MSI CRC samples (of which 8 had a germline MLH1 mutation) to determine whether this panel differentiates between sporadic and hereditary CRCs. We also analyzed MLH1 promoter methylation by methylation-specific PCR and pyrosequencing and BRAF status by genotyping. None of the hereditary CRCs showed MLH1 methylation, BRAF mutation, BRAFV600E-positive immunostaining, or loss of p16 expression. We detected MLH1 promoter methylation in 67 % and a BRAF mutation in 42 % of CRC, all showing MLH1 promoter methylation. BRAFV600E IHC and BRAF genotyping gave concordant results in all but two samples. Loss of expression of p16 was found in 30 % of CRC with methylation of the MLH1 promoter, but its expression was retained in all non-methylated and part of MLH1-methylated tumors (100 % specificity, 30 % sensitivity). CDX2 and MGMT expression was not associated with MLH1 status. Thus, BRAFV600E and p16 IHC may help in differentiating sporadic from hereditary MLH1-deficient CRC with MSI. Specifically, p16 IHC might be used as a surrogate marker for MLH1 promoter methylation, because all p16-negative CRCs displayed MLH1 methylation, whereas hereditary CRCs were all p16-positive.

Immunohistochemical detection of the BRAF V600E mutant protein in colorectal neoplasms

Reliable assessment of the BRAF mutation status is becoming increasingly important in the clinical management of colorectal carcinomas (CRC). The aim of this study was to investigate the use of a recently developed mutation-specific antibody (VE1; SpringBio, Pleasanton, CA) to detect the BRAF V600E protein in paraffin tissue. We analyzed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) 117 cases that had been evaluated for BRAF mutation using a MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry-based assay. Immunohistochemical staining was evaluated without the knowledge of the genetic data and was considered positive when there was distinct homogenous cytoplasmic staining in the tumor cells. The analyzed cases included 4 polyps, 63 primary CRC, and 50 metastatic CRC. Forty-five of the 46 (97.8%) cases that were positive by IHC had a BRAF V600E mutation by genetic analysis; the 1 discordant case was notably of signet ring cell type. Similarly, 66 of the 67 (98.5%) cases that were negative by IHC were also negative by genetic analysis. Four cases that showed weak cytoplasmic staining and/or nuclear staining in the tumor cells were considered to be IHC equivocal; by genetic analysis, 2 of the 4 were positive and 2 were negative. The overall sensitivity and specificity of IHC for the detection of a BRAF V600E mutant tumor was 93.7% and 95.6%, respectively. Our results support the use of VE1 IHC for identification of colorectal neoplasms harboring the BRAF V600E mutation. Difficulties in immunohistochemical interpretation may arise in a small number of cases and in those cases molecular testing is required.

Validation of a Manual Protocol for BRAF V600E Mutation-specific Immunohistochemistry

Detection of BRAF V600E has diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic relevance. The recently developed BRAF V600E mutation-specific antibody has evolved into a feasible alternative to DNA analysis. The plethora of immunohistochemical protocols makes implementation tedious and, here we tested a set of manual and automated protocols and compared test performance with sequencing results. For assays, we employed formalin-fixed, in part decalcified, and paraffin-embedded tissue samples. Empiric testing of manual protocols included 10 variables in 17 protocols. Automated immunohistochemical staining and BRAF pyrosequencing served as independent test methods. Test performance measures were compared without considering 1 method as a standard. Four well-fixed samples (2WT/2Mut) were used for testing of all protocols and indicated 2 correctly classifying procedures. Practical performance assessment employed 33 independent tissue samples, composed of 27 leukemias (by pyrosequencing: 8 wild-type; 18 mutated; 1 noninformative) and 6 melanomas (V600E; V600K; wild-type, 2 each). Manual V600E staining was positive in 20 cases (19 of 20 V600E-containing samples plus the 1 sample that was noninformative), whereas all wild-type and V600K cases were immunonegative. Manual or automated staining as well as pyrosequencing would have missed an equal number of V600E-mutated cases and the correlation coefficient for these methods was 0.75 to 0.93 (substantial to almost perfect); the Youden index was 0.95. Detection of V600E-mutated BRAF at the protein level in routine and decalcified tissue samples is possible, and the presented manual protocols should expedite implementation in routine diagnostic practice. Our results indicate that both molecular techniques should be considered complementary.

Immunohistochemical Detection of NRASQ61R Mutation in Diverse Tumor Types

OBJECTIVES

Testing for NRAS mutation at codon Q61 is of therapeutic, prognostic, and diagnostic importance for metastatic melanoma, thyroid carcinoma, and colorectal carcinoma. Immunohistochemistry for NRASQ61R, the most common NRAS mutation, offers several practical advantages over current molecular diagnostic techniques.

METHODS

We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of NRASQ61R in a series of 149 tumors with known NRAS genotype (72 malignant melanomas, 13 melanocytic nevi, 28 thyroid carcinomas, 25 gastrointestinal carcinomas, and 11 other malignancies).

RESULTS

Thirty-five cases harbored the NRASQ61R mutation (19 malignant melanomas, one melanocytic nevus, 10 thyroid carcinomas, two gastrointestinal carcinomas, and three other malignancies). In this series, the concordance rate between immunohistochemistry and mutational analyses was 100%. The sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 100%, respectively. However, lower staining intensity was observed for thyroid carcinomas in comparison to melanomas and other tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our studies confirmed that immunohistochemistry provides excellent sensitivity and specificity for detecting the NRASQ61R mutation in a variety of tumor types in a clinical setting.

Utility of BRAF V600E mutation-specific immunohistochemistry in detecting BRAF V600E-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumors

OBJECTIVES

As patients with BRAF V600E mutation respond to BRAF inhibitors, it is important to identify these mutations to stratify patients for the appropriate therapy. In this study, we evaluated the utility of a BRAF V600E allele-specific antibody in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

METHODS

BRAF V600E mutation-specific immunohistochemistry (negative, weak, or moderate/strong expression) and BRAF sequencing were performed on 38 consecutive GISTs diagnosed between January 2013 and April 2014.

RESULTS

GISTs from a cohort of 25 men and 13 women (mean age, 61 years; range, 39-88 years) were localized to the stomach (18), small bowel (10), colon (three), rectum (two), and pelvis/omentum (five). Strong and diffuse cytoplasmic BRAF expression was noted in two (5%) of 38 cases, while eight (21%) of 38 cases showed weak staining, and 28 (74%) of 38 cases were negative. Both of the strongly positive cases arose in the stomach, occurring in a 42-year-old and a 47-year-old woman, respectively. The lesions measured 0.8 and 1 cm, showed spindle cell morphology, and had no risk of progressive disease by Miettinen criteria. Both cases showed heterozygous BRAF V600E, while no BRAF mutations were detected in cases with weak or negative BRAF expression.

CONCLUSIONS

BRAF V600E mutation-specific immunohistochemistry is a highly sensitive and specific method for detecting BRAF-mutated GISTs.

Annexin A10 expression in colorectal cancers with emphasis on the serrated neoplasia pathway

AIM: To validate the utility of Annexin A10 as a surrogate marker of the serrated neoplasia pathway in invasive colorectal cancers (CRCs).

METHODS: A total of 1133 primary CRC patients who underwent surgical resection at Seoul National University Hospital between January 2004 and December 2007 were enrolled. Expression of Annexin A10 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry using tissue microarray and paired to our findings on clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics of each individual. CpG island methylator phenotype was determined by MethyLight assay and microsatellite instability was determined by high performance liquid chromatography. KRAS and BRAF mutation status was evaluated by direct sequencing and allele-specific PCR. Univariate and stage-specific survival analyses were performed to reveal the prognostic value of Annexin A10 expression.

RESULTS: Annexin A10 expression was observed in 66 (5.8%) of the 1133 patients. Annexin A10 expression was more commonly found in females and was associated with proximal location, ulcerative gross type, advanced T category, N category and TNM stage. CRCs with Annexin A10 expression showed an absence of luminal necrosis, luminal serration and mucin production. CRCs with Annexin A10 expression were associated with CpG island methylator phenotype, microsatellite instability and BRAF mutation. In survival analysis, Annexin A10 expression was associated with poor overall survival and progression-free survival, especially in stage IV CRCs.

CONCLUSION: Annexin A10 expression is associated with poor clinical behavior and can be used a supportive surrogate marker of the serrated neoplasia pathway in invasive CRCs.

Molecular characterization of apocrine salivary duct carcinoma

Contemporary classification and treatment of salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) require its thorough molecular characterization. Thirty apocrine SDCs were analyzed by the Ion Ampliseq Cancer HotSpot panel v2 for mutations in 50 cancer-related genes. Mutational findings were corroborated by immunohistochemistry (eg, TP53, BRAF, β-catenin, estrogen, and androgen receptors) or Sanger sequencing/SNaPshot polymerase chain reaction. ERBB2 (HER2), PTEN, FGFR1, CDKN2A/P16, CMET, EGFR, MDM2, and PIK3CA copy number changes were studied by fluorescence in situ hybridization. TP53 mutations (15/27, 56%), PTEN loss (11/29, 38%, including 2 cases with PTEN mutation), PIK3CA hotspot mutations (10/30, 33%), HRAS hotspot mutations (10/29; 34%), and ERBB2 amplification (9/29, 31%, including 1 case with mutation) represented the 5 most common abnormalities. There was no correlation between genetic changes and clinicopathologic parameters. There was substantial overlap between genetic changes: 8 of 9 cases with ERBB2 amplification also harbored a PIK3CA, HRAS, and TP53 mutation and/or PTEN loss. Six of 10 cases with PIK3CA mutation also had an HRAS mutation. These findings provide a molecular rationale for dual targeting of mitogen-activated protein kinase and phosphoinositide 3-kinase pathways in SDC. FGFR1 amplification (3/29, 10%) represents a new potential target. On the basis of studies of breast carcinomas, the efficacy of anti-ERBB2 therapy will likely be decreased in SDC with ERBB2 amplification co-occurring with PIK3CA mutation or PTEN loss. Therefore, isolated ERBB2 testing is insufficient for theranostic stratification of apocrine SDC. On the basis of the prevalence and type of genetic changes, apocrine SDC appears to resemble one subtype of breast carcinoma-"luminal androgen receptor positive/molecular apocrine."

Deficient mismatch repair: Read all about it (Review)

Defects in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, result in a phenotype called microsatellite instability (MSI), occurring in up to 15% of sporadic colorectal cancers. Approximately one quarter of colon cancers with deficient MMR (dMMR) develop as a result of an inherited predisposition syndrome, Lynch syndrome (formerly known as HNPCC). It is essential to identify patients who potentially have Lynch syndrome, as not only they, but also family members, may require screening and monitoring. Diagnostic criteria have been developed, based primarily on Western populations, and several methodologies are available to identify dMMR tumours, including immunohistochemistry and microsatellite testing. These criteria have provided evidence supporting the introduction of reflex testing. Yet, it is becoming increasingly clear that tests have a limited sensitivity and specificity and may yet be superseded by next generation sequencing. In this review, the limitations of diagnostic criteria are discussed, and current and emerging screening technologies explained. There is now useful evidence supporting the prognostic and predictive value of dMMR status in colorectal tumours, but much less is known about their value in extracolonic tumours, that may also feature in Lynch syndrome. This review assesses current literature relating to dMMR in endometrial, ovarian, gastric and melanoma cancers, which it would seem, may benefit from large-scale clinical trials in order to further close the gap in knowledge between colorectal and extracolonic tumours.

A model-based assessment of the cost-utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients

Background

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. Individuals with Lynch syndrome have an increased risk of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian and other cancers. Lynch syndrome remains underdiagnosed in the UK. Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is proposed as a method to identify more families affected by Lynch syndrome and offer surveillance to reduce cancer risks, although cost-effectiveness is viewed as a barrier to implementation. The objective of this project was to estimate the cost–utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in individuals with early-onset colorectal cancer in the NHS.

Methods

A decision analytic model was developed which simulated diagnostic and long-term outcomes over a lifetime horizon for colorectal cancer patients with and without Lynch syndrome and for relatives of those patients. Nine diagnostic strategies were modelled which included microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, immunohistochemistry (IHC), BRAF mutation testing (methylation testing in a scenario analysis), diagnostic mutation testing and Amsterdam II criteria. Biennial colonoscopic surveillance was included for individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome and accepting surveillance. Prophylactic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (H-BSO) was similarly included for women diagnosed with Lynch syndrome. Costs from NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated and discounted at 3.5% per annum.

Results

All strategies included for the identification of Lynch syndrome were cost-effective versus no testing. The strategy with the greatest net health benefit was MSI followed by BRAF followed by diagnostic genetic testing, costing £5,491 per QALY gained over no testing. The effect of prophylactic H-BSO on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is uncertain and could outweigh the health benefits of testing, resulting in overall QALY loss.

Conclusions

Reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients is predicted to be a cost-effective use of limited financial resources in England and Wales. Research is recommended into the cost-effectiveness of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in other associated cancers and into the impact of prophylactic H-BSO on HRQoL.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1254-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Application of immunohistochemistry in gastrointestinal and liver neoplasms: new markers and evolving practice

CONTEXT

Diagnosis of primary gastrointestinal and liver neoplasms is usually straightforward. Immunohistochemistry is most helpful to differentiate metastatic carcinomas with morphologic similarity and to resolve tumors of unknown origin. Recently, several new markers highly sensitive and specific for primary liver and gastrointestinal tumors have been discovered. Their potential diagnostic application has not been widely appreciated by general practicing pathologists. In addition, a new trend in immunohistochemistry application has started, focusing on assessing predictive markers (such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) and mutation-specific markers (v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B V600E) to directly guide clinical management. Practicing pathologists need to be aware of and prepared for this evolving trend.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the usefulness of several recently discovered immunohistochemical markers in the study of gastrointestinal and liver tumors; to suggest the most current and effective immunohistochemical panels addressing common diagnostic challenges for these tumors; to share practical experience and useful tips for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B V600E immunohistochemistry in colorectal carcinoma.

DATA SOURCES

Sources include literature review, and authors' research data and practice experience. The cases illustrated are selected from the pathology archives of the Geisinger Medical Center (Danville, Pennsylvania).

CONCLUSIONS

Application of immunohistochemistry in gastrointestinal and liver tumors continues to evolve. New tumor-specific markers constantly emerge and help pathologists to further improve diagnostic accuracy. Assessment of predictive and prognostic markers by immunohistochemistry in routine pathologic diagnosis is a new trend and will greatly facilitate the advancement of personalized cancer therapy.

Detection of BRAF mutation in Chinese tumor patients using a highly sensitive antibody immunohistochemistry assay

BRAF mutations can be found in various solid tumors. But accurate and reliable screening for BRAF mutation that is compatible for clinical application is not yet available. In this study, we used an automated immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining coupled with mouse monoclonal anti-BRAF V600E (VE1) primary antibody to screen the BRAF V600E mutation in 779 tumor cases, including 611 colorectal carcinomas (CRC), 127 papillary thyroid carcinomas (PTC) and 41 malignant melanomas. Among the 779 cases, 150 cases were positive for BRAF (V600E) staining, including 38 (of 611, 6%) CRCs, 102 (of 127, 80%) PTCs and 10 (of 41, 24%) malignant melanomas. Sanger sequencing and real-time PCR confirmed the sensitivity and specificity of IHC staining for the V600E mutation are 100% and 99%, respectively. Therefore, our study demonstrates that the fully automated IHC is a reliable tool to determine BRAF mutation status in CRC, PTC and melanoma and can be used for routine clinical screen.

A modified Lynch syndrome screening algorithm in colon cancer: BRAF immunohistochemistry is efficacious and cost beneficial

OBJECTIVES

Somatic BRAF mutation in colon cancer essentially excludes Lynch syndrome. We compared BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry (IHC) with BRAF mutation in core, biopsy, and whole-section slides to determine whether IHC is similar and to assess the cost-benefit of IHC.

METHODS

Resection cases (2009-2013) with absent MLH1 and PMS2 and prior BRAF mutation polymerase chain reaction results were chosen (n = 57). To mimic biopsy specimens, tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed. In addition, available biopsies performed prior to the resection were available in 15 cases. BRAF V600E IHC was performed and graded on TMAs, available biopsy specimens, and whole-section slides. Mutation status was compared with IHC, and cost-benefit analysis was performed.

RESULTS

BRAF V600E IHC was similar in TMAs, biopsy specimens, and whole-section slides, with only four (7%) showing discordance between IHC and mutation status. Using BRAF V600E IHC in our Lynch syndrome screening algorithm, we found a 10% cost savings compared with mutational analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

BRAF V600E IHC was concordant between TMAs, biopsy specimens, and whole-section slides, suggesting biopsy specimens are as useful as whole sections. IHC remained cost beneficial compared with mutational analysis, even though more patients needed additional molecular testing to exclude Lynch syndrome.

BRAF V600E mutation-specific antibody: A review

The significance of BRAF mutations in neoplasia was first recognized in 2002 when mutations were discovered in a broad range of cancers. Numerous subsequent studies expanded our understanding of BRAF V600E as a critical diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarker in many cancers. Additionally, the advent of small-molecule inhibitors of BRAF V600E rendered assessment of BRAF mutation status essential in tumors such as melanoma. In clinical practice, evaluation of BRAF mutation status has routinely been performed by DNA-based assays utilizing polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, molecular testing is not available at many hospitals since it is time-consuming, expensive, and requires expertise in molecular techniques. The first BRAF V600E-specific antibody was reported in 2011 (clone VE1). A purified version of this antibody as well as a second monoclonal antibody targeted to BRAF V600E is now commercially available. In this review, clinicopathologic characteristics associated with BRAF-mutant tumors will be highlighted, and the prognostic and predictive implications of a BRAF V600E mutation will be discussed with a focus on melanoma, thyroid carcinoma and colorectal carcinoma. Additionally, we will review the correlation between immunohistochemistry and molecular results and deliberate how BRAF immunohistochemistry might be utilized in the evaluation of these tumors.

BRAFV600E mutation analysis by immunohistochemistry in patients with thoracic metastases from colorectal cancer

The BRAF(V600E) mutation confers worse prognosis to metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. In addition, this mutation has a negative predictive value for response to treatment with monoclonal antibodies against EGFR in patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) mCRC. The utility of immunohistochemistry (IHC) as an alternative approach for detection of BRAF(V600E) in the thoracic metastases of sporadic mCRC patients has not been evaluated until now. The purpose of this study was to compare BRAF(V600E) IHC staining with molecular biology methods and to define the diagnostic value of the VE1 antibody for the detection of BRAF(V600E) in this population. BRAF mutations were analysed by two DNA sequencing methods (pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing) in a Caucasian population of 310 sporadic mCRC with thoracic metastases patients expressing KRAS wt. Detection of the BRAF(V600E) mutation was performed in the corresponding tumours by IHC using the VE1 antibody and compared to results of the DNA-based assays. Thirty-nine out of 310 (13%) of tumours harboured a BRAF mutation, which corresponded to either a BRAF(V600E) in 34 of 310 (11%) cases or a non-BRAF(V600E) mutation in 5 of 310 (2%) cases. IHC with VE1 was strongly positive in 32 of 34 (88%) BRAF(V600E) mutated tumours and negative in non-BRAF(V600E) mutated tumours. IHC using the VE1 clone is a specific and sensitive method for the detection of BRAF(V600E) and may be either a complementary or an alternative method to molecular testing in mCRC patients.

Evaluation of allele-specific PCR and immunohistochemistry for the detection of BRAF V600E mutations in hairy cell leukemia

OBJECTIVES

Detection of BRAF V600E mutations in hairy cell leukemia (HCL) has important diagnostic utility. In this study, we sought to compare immunohistochemistry with an antibody specific for this mutation to a sensitive molecular assay.

METHODS

The performance of the BRAF V600E-specific VE1 antibody was compared with that of allele-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 22 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens with HCL involvement, along with nine splenic marginal zone lymphomas (SMZLs), 10 follicular lymphomas (FLs), 10 mantle cell lymphomas (MCLs), and 10 chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphomas (CLL/SLLs). An additional 11 SMZLs, 100 FLs, 20 MCLs, 83 CLL/SLL specimens, and 49 reactive tonsils within tissue microarrays were stained with VE1.

RESULTS

A BRAF V600E mutation was detected in 17 (77.3%) of 22 HCL cases by PCR. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated VE1 staining in 20 (90.9%) cases, identifying low-level (~1%) involvement in three HCL cases that were mutation negative by PCR. Evaluation of additional material from these patients confirmed the presence of BRAF V600E. Thirty-nine non-HCL cases were negative by both methods. Within tissue microarrays, weak false-positive staining was observed in two (0.8%) of 263 non-HCL cases.

CONCLUSIONS

VE1 immunohistochemistry is more sensitive than allele-specific PCR in FFPE bone marrow specimens and can be applied to decalcified core biopsy specimens that are not appropriate for molecular techniques.

BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry is reliable in primary and metastatic colorectal carcinoma regardless of treatment status and shows high intratumoral homogeneity

In colorectal carcinoma the evaluation of BRAF mutation status is increasingly being performed given its utility as a prognostic and predictive biomarker. However, there are conflicting reports of the sensitivity and specificity of BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry (IHC), and little is known about its reliability in tissues collected from metastatic sites or after chemotherapy, radiation therapy and/or targeted therapy. The degree of intratumoral staining heterogeneity is also not well established. We performed IHC for BRAF V600E (VE1) on 204 cases of colorectal carcinoma including 59 with the BRAF V600E mutation. These included primary (n=147) and metastatic/recurrent (n=57) tumors, collected before (n=133) or after (n=71) chemotherapy, radiation therapy and/or targeted therapy. Evaluation of a test cohort (39 cases) with knowledge of mutation status established a specific staining pattern for the mutation: diffuse cytoplasmic staining of near-uniform intensity, regardless of strength of staining. Using this pattern, pathologists at 3 levels of training independently performed blinded evaluation of the remaining cases. BRAF V600E staining was 96.3% sensitive and 98.5% specific for the mutation, including both pretreatment and posttreatment specimens. Fleiss κ for interobserver agreement was 0.96. Staining of whole sections of the BRAF mutants showed diffuse staining in all cases and uniform or near-uniform intensity in 91%. In 20 cases with both pretreatment and posttreatment specimens, there was 100% accuracy and agreement in staining between samples. We conclude that BRAF V600E IHC is reliable for the evaluation of mutational status in colorectal carcinoma regardless of site or prior treatment history, and staining shows a high degree of intratumoral homogeneity.

Immunohistochemical detection of the BRAF V600E mutation in melanoma patients with monoclonal antibody VE1

A novel mutation-specific monoclonal antibody VE1 was generated to detect BRAF V600E mutation with immunohistochemistry. This study aims to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry compared with conventional Sanger sequencing and to evaluate whether IHC would become the routine screening method of BRAF V600E mutation. A total of 84 cases of melanoma lesion specimens were selected to make the tissue microarray and to perform IHC with VE1 antibody. Simultaneously Sanger sequencing was applied to test and verify. VE1 has a high specificity (100%) and sensitivity (72.2%), and the concordance between the two techniques is excellent (93.8% cases coherent and kappa = 0.801). As a rapid, cost-effective method, IHC may become the routine diagnostic means for the detection of BRAF V600E mutation of malignant melanomas in the near future, and the recommended detection process is initial immunohistochemical staining for positive cases, followed by molecular techniques for negative or ambiguous cases.

Select biomarkers for tumors of the gastrointestinal tract: present and future

CONTEXT

Advances in molecular biomarkers of the gastrointestinal tract have contributed to a decline in the incidence of and mortality from diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. The discovery and clinical validation of new biomarkers are important to personalized cancer therapy, and numerous clinical trials are currently ongoing to help identify individualized therapy affecting these biomarkers and molecular mechanisms they represent. Distinct molecular pathways leading to cancers of the colorectum, esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and pancreas have been identified. Using biomarkers in these pathways to direct patient care, including selection of proper molecular testing for identification of actionable mutations and reporting the results of these biomarkers to guide clinicians and genetic counselors, is paramount.

OBJECTIVE

To examine and review select clinically actionable biomarkers of the colon, esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and pancreas, including present and future biomarkers with relevant clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Extensive literature review and practical and consultation experience of the authors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although numerous biomarkers have been identified and are currently guiding patient therapy, few have shown evidence of clinical utility in the management of patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Inconsistent results and discordant proposed algorithms for testing were identified throughout the literature; however, the potential for biomarkers to improve outcomes for patients with gastrointestinal cancer remains high. Continued advances through high-quality studies are needed.

Performance comparison of three BRAF V600E detection methods in malignant melanoma and colorectal cancer specimens

Personalized cancer care requires reliable biomarkers. While the BRAF V600E mutation is implemented in the clinic, no method for its detection has so far been established as reference. We aimed to perform a comprehensive comparison of three methods currently being used for V600E detection in clinical samples. We analysed genomic DNA from 127 malignant melanomas (77 patients) and 389 tumours from 141 colorectal cancer patients (383 liver metastases and 6 primary tumours) by Sanger sequencing and a single probe-based high-resolution melting assay (LightMix). Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue from a subset of these lesions (n = 77 and 304, respectively) was analysed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the V600E-specific antibody VE1. In a dilution series of V600E-mutated DNA in wild-type DNA, the detection limit for the LightMix assay was 1:1000 mutated alleles while it was 1:10 for Sanger sequencing. In line with this, we detected 15 additional mutated melanoma samples and two additional mutated metastatic colorectal cancer samples by the LightMix assay compared to Sanger sequencing. For the melanoma samples, we observed high concordance between DNA-based methods and analysis by IHC. However, in colorectal samples, IHC performed poorly with 12 samples being scored as V600E positive exclusively by IHC and nine samples being scored as V600E negative exclusively by IHC. In conclusion, the VE1 antibody is not recommendable for clinical tests of colorectal cancer samples. For melanoma samples, IHC may be useful as a screening tool guiding further analytical approaches.