p.(L576P) -KIT mutation in GIST: Favorable prognosis and sensitive to imatinib?

Exon 11 KIT mutations are found in a majority of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and are usually predictive of response to imatinib, a KIT, PDGFRA and ABL inhibitor. Exon 11 mutations with poor sensitivity to imatinib and poor outcome can be observed on rare occasions, including p.(L576P). In silico and in vitro studies suggested a decreased binding affinity for imatinib in p.(L576P) KIT mutations, thereby offering an explanation for their poor outcome and poor response to standard therapy. These observations were further corroborated with anecdotal case reports of refractoriness or non-durable response to imatinib therapy. However, we describe the favorable response to imatinib and outcome in 5 p.(L576P)-KIT mutant GIST patients treated at a tertiary sarcoma referral center. The sensitivity of p.(L576P)-KIT mutations to imatinib, and the prognostic impact of this mutation need to be further evaluated in a larger cohort. Based on our observations, p.(L576P) mutated GISTs should be treated with standard first line imatinib therapy.

Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial.

AIMS: Mutation detection accuracy has been described extensively; however, it is surprising that pre-PCR processing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has not been systematically assessed in clinical context. We designed a RING trial to (i) investigate pre-PCR variability, (ii) correlate pre-PCR variation with EGFR/BRAF mutation testing accuracy and (iii) investigate causes for observed variation. METHODS: 13 molecular pathology laboratories were recruited. 104 blinded FFPE curls including engineered FFPE curls, cell-negative FFPE curls and control FFPE tissue samples were distributed to participants for pre-PCR processing and mutation detection. Follow-up analysis was performed to assess sample purity, DNA integrity and DNA quantitation. RESULTS: Rate of mutation detection failure was 11.9%. Of these failures, 80% were attributed to pre-PCR error. Significant differences in DNA yields across all samples were seen using analysis of variance (p

Establishing an EGFR mutation screening service for non-small cell lung cancer - sample quality criteria and candidate histological predictors.

INTRODUCTION: EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. METHODS: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sections were screened for EGFR mutations (M+) in exons 18-21. Clinical, pathological and screening outcome data were collected for year 1 of testing. Screening outcome alone was collected for year 2. RESULTS: In year 1, 152 samples were tested, most (72%) were diagnostic. TAT was 4.9 days (95%confidence interval (CI)=4.5-5.5). EGFR-M+ prevalence was 11% and higher (20%) among never-smoking women with adenocarcinomas (ADCs), but 30% of mutations occurred in current/ex-smoking men. EGFR-M+ tumours were non-mucinous ADCs and 100% thyroid transcription factor (TTF1+). No mutations were detected in poorly differentiated NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). There was a trend for improved overall survival (OS) among EGFR-M+ versus EGFR-M- patients (median OS=78 versus 17 months). In year 1, test failure rate was 19%, and associated with scant cellularity and low DNA concentrations. However 75% of samples with poor cellularity but representative of tumour were informative and mutation prevalence was 9%. In year 2, 755 samples were tested; mutation prevalence was 13% and test failure only 5.4%. Although samples with low DNA concentration (2.2 ng/μL), the mutation rate was 9.2%. CONCLUSION: Routine epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) screening using diagnostic samples is fast and feasible even on samples with poor cellularity and DNA content. Mutations tend to occur in better-differentiated non-mucinous TTF1+ ADCs. Whether these histological criteria may be useful to select patients for EGFR testing merits further investigation.