非小细胞肺癌患者的 RET 融合检测:RETING 研究

Esther Conde MD, PhD , Susana Hernandez PhD , Jose Luis Rodriguez Carrillo MD , Rebeca Martinez APT , Marta Alonso APT , Daniel Curto MD , Beatriz Jimenez MD , Alejandra Caminoa MD, PhD , Amparo Benito MD , Pilar Garrido MD, PhD , Sergi Clave PhD , Edurne Arriola MD, PhD , Isabel Esteban-Rodriguez MD, PhD , Javier De Castro MD, PhD , Irene Sansano MD , Enriqueta Felip MD, PhD , Federico Rojo MD, PhD , Manuel Dómine MD, PhD , Ihab Abdulkader MD, PhD , Jorge Garcia-Gonzalez MD , Fernando Lopez-Rios MD, PhD
{"title":"非小细胞肺癌患者的 RET 融合检测:RETING 研究","authors":"Esther Conde MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Susana Hernandez PhD ,&nbsp;Jose Luis Rodriguez Carrillo MD ,&nbsp;Rebeca Martinez APT ,&nbsp;Marta Alonso APT ,&nbsp;Daniel Curto MD ,&nbsp;Beatriz Jimenez MD ,&nbsp;Alejandra Caminoa MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Amparo Benito MD ,&nbsp;Pilar Garrido MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Sergi Clave PhD ,&nbsp;Edurne Arriola MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Isabel Esteban-Rodriguez MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Javier De Castro MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Irene Sansano MD ,&nbsp;Enriqueta Felip MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Federico Rojo MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Manuel Dómine MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Ihab Abdulkader MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Jorge Garcia-Gonzalez MD ,&nbsp;Fernando Lopez-Rios MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jtocrr.2024.100653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p><em>RET</em> inhibitors with impressive overall response rates are now available for patients with NSCLC, yet the identification of <em>RET</em> fusions remains a difficult challenge. Most guidelines encourage the upfront use of next-generation sequencing (NGS), or alternatively, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) when NGS is not possible or available. Taken together, the suboptimal performance of single-analyte assays to detect <em>RET</em> fusions, although consistent with the notion of encouraging universal NGS, is currently widening some of the clinical practice gaps in the implementation of predictive biomarkers in patients with advanced NSCLC.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This situation prompted us to evaluate several <em>RET</em> assays in a large multicenter cohort of <em>RET</em> fusion–positive NSCLC (n = 38) to obtain real-world data. In addition to RNA-based NGS (the criterion standard method), all positive specimens underwent break-apart <em>RET</em> FISH with two different assays and were also tested by an RT-PCR assay.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The most common <em>RET</em> partners were <em>KIF5B</em> (78.9%), followed by <em>CCDC6</em> (15.8%). The two <em>RET</em> NGS-positive but FISH-negative samples contained a <em>KIF5B(15)-RET(12)</em> fusion. The three <em>RET</em> fusions not identified with RT-PCR were <em>AKAP13(35)-RET(12)</em>, <em>KIF5B(24)-RET(9)</em> and <em>KIF5B(24)-RET(11)</em>. All three false-negative RT-PCR cases were FISH-positive, exhibited a typical break-apart pattern, and contained a very high number of positive tumor cells with both FISH assays. Signet ring cells, psammoma bodies, and pleomorphic features were frequently observed (in 34.2%, 39.5%, and 39.5% of tumors, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In-depth knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the different <em>RET</em> testing methodologies could help clinical and molecular tumor boards implement and maintain sensible algorithms for the rapid and effective detection of <em>RET</em> fusions in patients with NSCLC. The likelihood of <em>RET</em> false-negative results with both FISH and RT-PCR reinforces the need for upfront NGS in patients with NSCLC.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17675,"journal":{"name":"JTO Clinical and Research Reports","volume":"5 4","pages":"Article 100653"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666364324000237/pdfft?md5=1d0484197557d1fce0d0732e03259f18&pid=1-s2.0-S2666364324000237-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RET Fusion Testing in Patients With NSCLC: The RETING Study\",\"authors\":\"Esther Conde MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Susana Hernandez PhD ,&nbsp;Jose Luis Rodriguez Carrillo MD ,&nbsp;Rebeca Martinez APT ,&nbsp;Marta Alonso APT ,&nbsp;Daniel Curto MD ,&nbsp;Beatriz Jimenez MD ,&nbsp;Alejandra Caminoa MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Amparo Benito MD ,&nbsp;Pilar Garrido MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Sergi Clave PhD ,&nbsp;Edurne Arriola MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Isabel Esteban-Rodriguez MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Javier De Castro MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Irene Sansano MD ,&nbsp;Enriqueta Felip MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Federico Rojo MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Manuel Dómine MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Ihab Abdulkader MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Jorge Garcia-Gonzalez MD ,&nbsp;Fernando Lopez-Rios MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jtocrr.2024.100653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p><em>RET</em> inhibitors with impressive overall response rates are now available for patients with NSCLC, yet the identification of <em>RET</em> fusions remains a difficult challenge. Most guidelines encourage the upfront use of next-generation sequencing (NGS), or alternatively, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) when NGS is not possible or available. Taken together, the suboptimal performance of single-analyte assays to detect <em>RET</em> fusions, although consistent with the notion of encouraging universal NGS, is currently widening some of the clinical practice gaps in the implementation of predictive biomarkers in patients with advanced NSCLC.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This situation prompted us to evaluate several <em>RET</em> assays in a large multicenter cohort of <em>RET</em> fusion–positive NSCLC (n = 38) to obtain real-world data. In addition to RNA-based NGS (the criterion standard method), all positive specimens underwent break-apart <em>RET</em> FISH with two different assays and were also tested by an RT-PCR assay.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The most common <em>RET</em> partners were <em>KIF5B</em> (78.9%), followed by <em>CCDC6</em> (15.8%). The two <em>RET</em> NGS-positive but FISH-negative samples contained a <em>KIF5B(15)-RET(12)</em> fusion. The three <em>RET</em> fusions not identified with RT-PCR were <em>AKAP13(35)-RET(12)</em>, <em>KIF5B(24)-RET(9)</em> and <em>KIF5B(24)-RET(11)</em>. All three false-negative RT-PCR cases were FISH-positive, exhibited a typical break-apart pattern, and contained a very high number of positive tumor cells with both FISH assays. Signet ring cells, psammoma bodies, and pleomorphic features were frequently observed (in 34.2%, 39.5%, and 39.5% of tumors, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In-depth knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the different <em>RET</em> testing methodologies could help clinical and molecular tumor boards implement and maintain sensible algorithms for the rapid and effective detection of <em>RET</em> fusions in patients with NSCLC. The likelihood of <em>RET</em> false-negative results with both FISH and RT-PCR reinforces the need for upfront NGS in patients with NSCLC.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JTO Clinical and Research Reports\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 100653\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666364324000237/pdfft?md5=1d0484197557d1fce0d0732e03259f18&pid=1-s2.0-S2666364324000237-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JTO Clinical and Research Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666364324000237\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTO Clinical and Research Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666364324000237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前,可用于 NSCLC 患者的导入 RET 抑制剂的总体反应率令人印象深刻,但 RET 融合的鉴定仍是一项艰巨的挑战。大多数指南都鼓励在前期使用新一代测序(NGS),或者在无法使用 NGS 时使用荧光原位杂交(FISH)或反转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)。这种情况促使我们在 RET 融合阳性 NSCLC(n = 38)的大型多中心队列中评估了几种 RET 检测方法,以获得真实世界的数据。除了基于 RNA 的 NGS(标准方法)外,所有阳性标本都接受了两种不同检测方法的 RET FISH 检测,还接受了 RT-PCR 检测。结果最常见的 RET 伴侣是 KIF5B(78.9%),其次是 CCDC6(15.8%)。两个 RET NGS 阳性但 FISH 阴性的样本含有 KIF5B(15)-RET(12) 融合。RT-PCR 未鉴定出的三例 RET 融合为 AKAP13(35)-RET(12)、KIF5B(24)-RET(9) 和 KIF5B(24)-RET(11)。三例 RT-PCR 假阴性病例均为 FISH 阳性,表现出典型的断裂模式,且两种 FISH 检测方法均含有大量阳性肿瘤细胞。结论深入了解不同 RET 检测方法的优缺点有助于临床和分子肿瘤委员会实施和维护合理的算法,快速有效地检测 NSCLC 患者的 RET 融合。FISH和RT-PCR都有可能出现RET假阴性结果,这加强了对NSCLC患者进行前期NGS检测的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
RET Fusion Testing in Patients With NSCLC: The RETING Study

Introduction

RET inhibitors with impressive overall response rates are now available for patients with NSCLC, yet the identification of RET fusions remains a difficult challenge. Most guidelines encourage the upfront use of next-generation sequencing (NGS), or alternatively, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) when NGS is not possible or available. Taken together, the suboptimal performance of single-analyte assays to detect RET fusions, although consistent with the notion of encouraging universal NGS, is currently widening some of the clinical practice gaps in the implementation of predictive biomarkers in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Methods

This situation prompted us to evaluate several RET assays in a large multicenter cohort of RET fusion–positive NSCLC (n = 38) to obtain real-world data. In addition to RNA-based NGS (the criterion standard method), all positive specimens underwent break-apart RET FISH with two different assays and were also tested by an RT-PCR assay.

Results

The most common RET partners were KIF5B (78.9%), followed by CCDC6 (15.8%). The two RET NGS-positive but FISH-negative samples contained a KIF5B(15)-RET(12) fusion. The three RET fusions not identified with RT-PCR were AKAP13(35)-RET(12), KIF5B(24)-RET(9) and KIF5B(24)-RET(11). All three false-negative RT-PCR cases were FISH-positive, exhibited a typical break-apart pattern, and contained a very high number of positive tumor cells with both FISH assays. Signet ring cells, psammoma bodies, and pleomorphic features were frequently observed (in 34.2%, 39.5%, and 39.5% of tumors, respectively).

Conclusions

In-depth knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the different RET testing methodologies could help clinical and molecular tumor boards implement and maintain sensible algorithms for the rapid and effective detection of RET fusions in patients with NSCLC. The likelihood of RET false-negative results with both FISH and RT-PCR reinforces the need for upfront NGS in patients with NSCLC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
145
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
First Report of Response to Tarlatamab in a Patient With DLL3-Positive Pulmonary Carcinoid: Case Report A Response to the Letter to the Editor: “Heart and Lung Dose as Predictors of Overall Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Lung Cancer: A National Multicenter Study” Racial Differences in Systemic Immune Parameters in Individuals With Lung Cancer Brief Report of a New Anatomical Region at Risk in Thoracic Radiotherapy: From Discovery to Implementation Entrectinib-Induced Myocarditis and Acute Heart Failure Responding to Steroid Treatment: A Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1