Faculty Bibliography

Patients with one form of cancer are at increased risk for another, and this is true for lung cancer, where synchronous primary lung cancers are an increasing multifaceted challenge.^1,2 Here, we present the case of a middle age woman who was found to have bilateral lung masses. Biopsy and subsequent testing revealed unique synchronous lung adenocarcinomas, each with unique genetic signatures. Despite having two unique tumors, she was found to have CHEK2 mutations in both tumors and in germline testing. Because of this extensive testing that showed unique tumors, she was ultimately diagnosed with stage IIIb and IA2 lung cancers, and this changed her treatment options. Consideration of unique primary tumors leads to thorough diagnostics, which changed this patient's diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. We hope this case raises awareness for multiple primary tumors, as well as CHEK2 as an important oncogene.

Screening for therapeutic targets is standard of care in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. However, most molecular assays utilize tumor tissue, which may not always be available. "Liquid biopsies" are plasma-based next generation sequencing (NGS) assays that use circulating tumor DNA to identify relevant targets. To compare the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of a plasma-based NGS assay to solid-tumor-based NGS we retrospectively analyzed sequencing results of 100 sequential patients with lung adenocarcinoma at our institution who had received concurrent testing with both a solid-tissue-based NGS assay and a commercially available plasma-based NGS assay. Patients represented both new diagnoses (79%) and disease progression on treatment (21%); the majority (83%) had stage IV disease. Tissue-NGS identified 74 clinically relevant mutations, including 52 therapeutic targets, a sensitivity of 94.8%, while plasma-NGS identified 41 clinically relevant mutations, a sensitivity of 52.6% (p < 0.001). Tissue-NGS showed significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy across multiple patient subgroups, both in newly diagnosed and treated patients, as well as in metastatic and nonmetastatic disease. Discrepant cases involved hotspot mutations and actionable fusions including those in EGFR, ALK, and NTRK1. In summary, tissue-NGS detects significantly more clinically relevant alterations and therapeutic targets compared to plasma-NGS, suggesting that tissue-NGS should be the preferred method for molecular testing of lung adenocarcinoma when tissue is available. Plasma-NGS can still play an important role when tissue testing is not possible. However, given its low sensitivity, a negative result should be confirmed with a tissue-based assay.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:There is no consensus for interpretation of p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) in cytology preparations. Our study aims to assess p16 IHC staining in formalin-fixed cytology cell blocks (CBs) from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens in comparison with surgical pathology p16 staining and to determine the reproducibility of p16 IHC scoring in CBs. METHODS:) was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. RESULTS:= 0.79 (95% CI: 0.61-0.98). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:p16 IHC performed on cytology CBs can serve as a surrogate marker for the detection of HPV with high sensitivity and specificity levels. Using a threshold lower than that recommended for surgical pathology for the interpretation of p16 positivity may be appropriate for FNA cytology CB preparations. All cytopathologists in our study displayed reproducible high sensitivity and specificity values at the >10% threshold.

Lung transplant is increasingly performed for the treatment of end-stage lung disease. As the number of lung transplants and transplant centers continues to rise, radiologists will more frequently participate in the care of patients undergoing lung transplant, both before and after transplant. Potential donors and recipients undergo chest radiography and CT as part of their pretransplant assessment to evaluate for contraindications to transplant and to aid in surgical planning. After transplant, recipients undergo imaging during the postoperative hospitalization and also in the long-term outpatient setting. Radiologists encounter a wide variety of conditions leading to end-stage lung disease and a myriad of posttransplant complications, some of which are unique to lung transplantation. Familiarity with these pathologic conditions, including their imaging findings and their temporal relationship to the transplant, is crucial to accurate radiologic interpretation. Knowledge of the surgical techniques and expected postoperative appearance prevents confusing normal posttransplant imaging findings with complications. A basic understanding of the indications, contraindications, and surgical considerations of lung transplant aids in imaging interpretation and protocoling and also facilitates communication between radiologists and transplant physicians. Despite medical and surgical advances over the past several decades, lung transplant recipients currently have an average posttransplant life expectancy of only 6.7 years. As members of the transplant team, radiologists can help maximize patient survival and hopefully increase posttransplant life expectancy and quality of life in the coming decades. ^©RSNA, 2021 An invited commentary by Bierhals is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Background: Thyroseq next-generation sequencing assay and Afirma gene expression classifier (GEC) are used to risk-stratify thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology: Bethesda III (atypia of undetermined significance, AUS/FLUS) and IV (suspicious for follicular neoplasm, SFN). In this study, we performed a paired comparison of both tests on the same group of indeterminate thyroid nodules with surgical followup.
Design(s): Of 645 AUS/FLUS/SFN cases with both molecular testing and surgical resection in 2014-2017, 40 cases had both Thyroseq (v2) and Afirma GEC performed on the same specimen. Cross-tabulations and ROC curves were created. McNemar tests were done to compare the performance of Thyroseq versus Afirma. The diagnostic performance of combined results were also examined: the combined result was called positive only if both Thyroseq and Afirma were positive/suspicious. Non-invasive follicular thyroid with papillary like nuclear features (NIFTP) on surgical resections was defined as ?positive.? Results: 20/40 (50%) cases were ?positive? on surgical pathology: 8 papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), 11 NIFTP, and 1 follicular carcinoma. Thyroseq and Afirma both showed high sensitivity and low specificity in diagnosing malignancy in indeterminate thyroid nodules. Next, the results of both tests were combined. The overall accuracy of combined testing was higher than either test alone (Figure 1). Compared to Afirma alone, the combined test had significantly higher specificity (30% vs 70%, p<0.05, Table 1), while the sensitivity declined from 90% to 75% (p=0.25, Table 1). Compared to Thyroseq alone, there was no significant difference in specificity (45% vs 70% p=0.06) or sensitivity (80% vs 75%, p=1.00, Table 1). Positive predictive value (PPV) improved compared to either test alone. Negative predictive value (NPV) improved compared to Thyroseq alone, and declined only slightly compared to Afirma alone.
Conclusion(s): Molecular testing of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules helps determine the extent of surgery. Low diagnostic performance metrics may limit the utility of molecular studies in distinguishing benign from malignant thyroid lesions. Our results show that the combined results of Thyroseq and Afirma improved the specificity and overall accuracy of molecular testing, and provided additional value in the surgical management of patients with indeterminate thyroid nodules. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that compares the performance of these two molecular tests on the same thyroid nodules

Background: Growing evidence suggests the prognostic significance of SATS in patients with early-stage lung adenocarcinoma, in particular, those with sublobar resection. However, published studies used various definitions for STAS; the diagnosis of STAS may be subject to interobserver variability that, in turn, may result in the difference in prevalence and prognostic significance of STAS across institutions.
Design(s): The study cohort consisted of stage 1 lung adenocarcinomas resected at two institutions (cohort A: n=283; cohort B: n=198) during similar time periods with similarly decent follow-up. Both institutions had applied similar grossing/processing protocols. The prevalence of STAS and its association with clinicopathologic variables, recurrence free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the cohorts. The variables included type of operation, AJCC 8th stage, histologic grade, as well as the presence of lepidic, micropapillary (mPAP), or solid (SOL) patterns (5% cut-off for presence).
Result(s): The prevalence of STAS was 7% in cohort A and 39% in cohort B (p<0.0001). The tumor histologic grade (high grade: 21% in A vs. 37% in B, p=0.0001) and AJCC stage (Stage 1B: 19% in A vs. 13% in B, p=0.048) also differed between the cohorts, while no difference was seen in the other variables. STAS was associated with high grade histology, the absence of lepidic and the presence of mPAP and SOL patterns (p<0.01 for all) in both cohorts, while it was also associated with stage 1B in cohort A (p=0.016). In multivariate analysis, STAS was associated with high grade histology (p<0.0001) and marginally with the presence of mPAP (p=0.065) in cohort A, and lobectomy (p=0.016), the presence of mPAP (p<0.0001) and SOL (p=0.027) in cohort B. Regarding survival, STAS was associated with shorter RFS (p=0.030) and OS (p=0.048) in cohort B and with shorter OS (p=0.040) and marginally with shorter RFS (p=0.060) in the sublobar resection subset of cohort B by univariate analysis, while STAS had no bearing on survival in the lobectomy subset or cohort A. Of note, no difference in RFS and OS was seen as a whole between the cohorts.
Conclusion(s): The prevalence and prognostic significance of STAS differ between the two institutional cohorts. While this may be explained in part by the difference in patient populations, subjectivity to the diagnosis of STAS may potentially contribute. Additional multi-institutional studies to better define and improve reproducibility of STAS are warranted