Predictive Biomarkers and Companion Diagnostics. The Future of Immunohistochemistry: “In Situ Proteomics,” or Just a “Stain”?

A ‘companion diagnostic’ is a test for a predictive biomarker, that classifies patients (tumors) into responders and non-responders, for a specified therapeutic agent. Companion diagnostics are designated as Class III medical devices by the FDA, because the test result equates directly to administration of a drug. Testing for HER2 expression was approved by the FDA in 1998, and served as the prototype for using immunohistochemistry (IHC) as the basis for a companion diagnostic. However, over four decades IHC has primarily been employed in a broad range of ‘special stains’, for identification and classification cells and tumors in FFPE (formalin fixed paraffin embedded) tissues. During the long use of IHC as a ‘special stain’ we have acquired some very bad habits, changing protocols, concentrations, incubation times, retrieval methods, or reagents, to achieve the perception of a ‘good’ stain, that ‘pleases the eye’ of the user pathologist. While this approach may be acceptable for IHC stains, it is a recipe for disaster when transferred to companion diagnostics, where quantification and absolute reproducibility are required. In the context of companion diagnostics the IHC method should be regarded as an assay, not simply a stain. Elevating IHC to a true immunoassay will necessitate a much more rigorous approach to performance, reproducibility and control. The ultimate goal is to supplement morphologic judgment with precise measurement of proteins in tissues and in individual cells, ‘in situ proteomics’ as it were.

[1]  K. Kinzler,et al.  Cancer Genome Landscapes , 2013, Science.

[2]  S. Shi,et al.  Chapter 1 – Techniques of Immunohistochemistry: Principles, Pitfalls and Standardization , 2006 .

[3]  E. D. de Vries,et al.  Prognostic versus predictive value of biomarkers in oncology. , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[4]  Peter A Kaufman,et al.  HER2 testing by local, central, and reference laboratories in specimens from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 intergroup adjuvant trial. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  D. Rimm,et al.  Standardization of estrogen receptor measurement in breast cancer suggests false-negative results are a function of threshold intensity rather than percentage of positive cells. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  C. Taylor Quantifiable internal reference standards for immunohistochemistry: the measurement of quantity by weight. , 2006, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[7]  Clive R. Taylor,et al.  Focus on biospecimens: the issue is the tissue. observations on the "NCI-NIST fitness-for-purpose quality assessment and standards development workshop," October 2010. , 2011, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[8]  Yuval Kluger,et al.  A Tissue Quality Index – an Intrinsic Control for Measurement of Effects of Pre-analytical Variables on FFPE Tissue , 2014, Laboratory Investigation.

[9]  Robert A. Beckman,et al.  Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[10]  Greg Yothers,et al.  Real-world performance of HER2 testing--National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Christopher Otis,et al.  Quality assurance for design control and implementation of immunohistochemistry assays; Approved guidelinesecond edition , 2011 .

[12]  R M Levenson,et al.  Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II , 2006, Histopathology.

[13]  Clive R Taylor,et al.  Practicing Pathology in the Era of Big Data and Personalized Medicine , 2014, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[14]  A. Sparks,et al.  The Genomic Landscapes of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers , 2007, Science.

[15]  Clive R. Taylor,et al.  Standardization of Negative Controls in Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry: Recommendations From the International Ad Hoc Expert Panel , 2014, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[16]  Clive R Taylor,et al.  From Microscopy to Whole Slide Digital Images: A Century and a Half of Image Analysis , 2011, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[17]  Benjamin J. Raphael,et al.  Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types , 2013, Nature.

[18]  R. Walker,et al.  Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment I , 2006, Histopathology.

[19]  Qing Li,et al.  Highly multiplexed single-cell analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cancer tissue , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Madhuri Hegde,et al.  Implementing Genomic Medicine in Pathology , 2013, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[21]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. , 2006, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[22]  K. Gatter,et al.  Immunomicroscopy: A Diagnostic Tool for the Surgical Pathologist , 1995 .

[23]  A. Gown Current issues in ER and HER2 testing by IHC in breast cancer , 2008, Modern Pathology.

[24]  K. Becker,et al.  “Liquid Morphology”: Immunochemical Analysis of Proteins Extracted From Formalin-fixed Paraffin-embedded Tissues Combining Proteomics With Immunohistochemistry , 2011, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[25]  Heikki Helin,et al.  Nordic immunohistochemical quality control. , 2005, Croatian medical journal.