No abstract

Patterns of resistance to first-line osimertinib are not well-established and have primarily been evaluated using plasma assays which cannot detect histologic transformation and have differential sensitivity for copy number changes and chromosomal rearrangements. Experimental Design:To characterize mechanisms of resistance to osimertinib, patients with metastatic EGFR-mutant lung cancers who received osimertinib at Memorial Sloan Kettering and had next-generation sequencing performed on tumor tissue before osimertinib initiation and after progression were identified.Results: Among 62 patients who met eligibility critieria, histologic transformation, primarily squamous transformation, was identified in 15% of first-line osimertinib cases and 14% of laterline cases. Nineteen percent (5/27) of patients treated with first-line osimertinib had off-target genetic resistance (2 MET amplification, 1 KRAS mutation, 1 RET fusion, and 1 BRAF fusion) whereas 4% (1/27) had an acquired EGFR mutation (EGFR G724S). Patients with squamous transformation exhibited considerable genomic complexity; acquired PIK3CA mutation, chromosome 3q amplification and FGF amplification were all seen. Patients with transformation had shorter time on osimertinib and shorter survival compared to patients with on-target resistance. Initial EGFR sensitizing mutation, time on osimertinib treatment and line of therapy also influenced resistance mechanism that emerged. The compound mutation EGFR S768 + V769L and the mutation MET H1094Y were identified and validated as resistance mechanisms with potential treatment options. Conclusion:Histologic transformation and other off-target molecular alterations are frequent early emerging resistance mechanisms to osimertinib and are associated with poor clinical outcomes.Research.

Introduction: EGFR-mutant lung cancers are clinically and genomically heterogeneous with concurrent RB transcriptional corepressor 1 (RB1)/tumor protein p53 (TP53) alterations identifying a subset at increased risk for small cell transformation. The genomic alterations that induce lineage plasticity are unknown. Methods: Patients with EGFR/RB1/TP53-mutant lung cancers, identified by next-generation sequencing from 2014 to 2018, were compared to patients with untreated,

Purpose: SMARCA4 mutations are among the most common recurrent alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the relationship to other genomic abnormalities and clinical impact has not been established.Experimental Design: To characterize SMARCA4 alterations in NSCLC, we analyzed the genomic, protein expression, and clinical outcome data of patients with SMARCA4 alterations treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering.Results: In 4,813 tumors from patients with NSCLC, we identified 8% (n ¼ 407) of patients with SMARCA4-mutant lung cancer. We describe two categories of SMARCA4 mutations: class 1 mutations (truncating mutations, fusions, and homozygous deletion) and class 2 mutations (missense mutations). Protein expression loss was associated with class 1 mutation (81% vs. 0%, P < 0.001). Both classes of mutation co-occurred more frequently with KRAS, STK11, and KEAP1 mutations compared with SMARCA4 wild-type tumors (P < 0.001). In patients with metastatic NSCLC, SMARCA4 alterations were associated with shorter overall survival, with class 1 alterations associated with shortest survival times (P < 0.001). Conversely, we found that treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) was associated with improved outcomes in patients with SMARCA4mutant tumors (P ¼ 0.01), with class 1 mutations having the best response to ICIs (P ¼ 0.027).Conclusions: SMARCA4 alterations can be divided into two clinically relevant genomic classes associated with differential protein expression as well as distinct prognostic and treatment implications. Both classes co-occur with KEAP1, STK11, and KRAS mutations, but individually represent independent predictors of poor prognosis. Despite association with poor outcomes, SMARCA4-mutant lung cancers may be more sensitive to immunotherapy.

No abstract

Because cytology is cheap and easy to perform with high sensitivity, it is the preferred, primary approach for typical CL, but cytology and pathology do not have sufficient sensitivity for diagnosis of atypical CL cases. Nested polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry are sensitive tests for diagnosis of both typical and atypical CL and are recommended as complementary tests in suspected CL with negative conventional microscopy results.

No abstract

A European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) working party of 28 members from 14 European countries met at the European Congress of Cytology in Lisbon in September 2009, with two observers from the USA, to discuss the need for standardising thyroid FNA nomenclature in the light of the National Institute of Cancer (NCI) recommendations resulting from the State of the Science conference in Bethesda in 2007. The data were obtained through two questionnaires sent by email and a transcript of the live discussion at the congress, which is presented in full. The surveys and discussion showed that there were currently no national terminologies for reporting thyroid FNA in the different European countries except in Italy and the UK. Personal, 'local', surgical pathology and descriptive terminologies were in use. All but one of the working party members agreed that thyroid FNA reporting should be standardised. Whilst almost a third would adopt the NCI Bethesda terminology, which offers the advantages of a 'risk of cancer' correlation and is linked to clinical recommendations, more than half favoured a translation of local terminology as the first step towards a unified nomenclature, as has been done recently in the UK. There was some disagreement about the use of: a) the six-tiered as opposed to four or five-tiered systems, b) the use of an indeterminate category and c) the 'follicular neoplasm' category, which was felt by some participants not to be different from the 'suspicious of malignancy' category. The conclusions will be passed to the different national societies of cytology for discussion, who will be asked to map their local terminologies to the Bethesda classification, observe its acceptance by clinicians and audit its correlation with outcome.