Advertisement

Intense Expression of EGFR L858R Characterizes the Micropapillary Component and L858R Is Associated with the Risk of Recurrence in pN0M0 Lung Adenocarcinoma with the Micropapillary Component

  • Naoto Kishi
  • Masaoki Ito
  • Yoshihiro Miyata
  • Akinori Kanai
  • Yoshinori Handa
  • Yasuhiro Tsutani
  • Kei Kushitani
  • Yukio Takeshima
  • Morihito OkadaEmail author
Translational Research and Biomarkers
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Lung adenocarcinoma with the micropapillary (MP) component poses a higher risk of recurrence even when the MP component is not predominant. This study explored genetic features associated with highly malignant behavior of lung adenocarcinoma with the MP component.

Methods

The MP and papillary (PaP) components were captured separately in three patients. Comprehensive mRNA expressions of somatic variants were compared between the MP and PaP components of each patient using next-generation sequencing (NGS). The protein expression of the NGS-detected variant was validated by immunohistochemistry. The prognostic impact of the detected variant was evaluated in 288 adenocarcinoma patients with resection of pN0M0.

Results

In two cases, NGS suggested higher RNA expression of EGFR L858R in the MP component than in the PaP component (allele frequency, 0.485 vs. 0.155 and 1.000 vs. 0.526, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Immunohistochemistry validated intense expression of L858R in the MP component of 27 MP-positive (MP+) patients. Among 288 pN0M0 patients, L858R was more frequently harbored in the MP+ patients than in the MP-negative (MP−) patients. The MP+ patients harboring L858R showed significantly worse recurrence-free survival (RFS) than the MP+ patients without L858R (median RFS 38.7 and 55.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 3.004; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.306–9.132; P = 0.012). Multivariate analysis of the MP+ patients showed that positive L858R status was associated with poorer RFS (HR 2.976; 95% CI 1.190–7.442; P = 0.020).

Conclusions

EGFR L858R was more frequently harbored in the MP+ adenocarcinoma patients than in the MP− adenocarcinoma patients. Intense expression of L858R in the MP component was suggested, and the MP+ patients harboring L858R were at comparatively higher risk of recurrence in the group with pN0M0 lung adenocarcinoma.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was conducted in part at the Analysis Center of Life Science, Natural Science Center for Basic Research and Development, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan. The authors thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Disclosure

There are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10434_2019_7854_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 14 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, et al. International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:244–85.  https://doi.org/10.1097/jto.0b013e318206a221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hung JJ, Yeh YC, Jeng WJ, et al. Predictive value of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society classification of lung adenocarcinoma in tumor recurrence and patient survival. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2357–64.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.50.1049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mansuet-Lupo A, Bobbio A, Blons H, et al. The new histologic classification of lung primary adenocarcinoma subtypes is a reliable prognostic marker and identifies tumors with different mutation status: the experience of a French cohort. Chest. 2014;146:633–43.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-2499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yanagawa N, Shiono S, Abiko M, Katahira M, Osakabe M, Ogata SY. The clinical impact of solid and micropapillary patterns in resected lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:1976–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.06.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haruki T, Wakahara M, Matsuoka Y, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of lung adenocarcinoma with unexpected lymph node metastasis. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;23:181–87.  https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.16-00309.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang Y, Wang R, Cai D, et al. A comprehensive investigation of molecular features and prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma with micropapillary component. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;12:1772–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/jto.0000000000000341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun Y, Yu X, Shi X, Hong W, Zhao J, Shi L. Correlation of survival and EGFR mutation with predominant histologic subtype according to the new lung adenocarcinoma classification in stage IB patients. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:148.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warth A, Muley T, Meister M, et al. The novel histologic International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society classification system of lung adenocarcinoma is a stage-independent predictor of survival. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1438–46.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.37.2185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koga K, Hamasaki M, Kato F, et al. Association of c-Met phosphorylation with micropapillary pattern and small cluster invasion in pT1-size lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2013;82:413–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.09.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsubokawa N, Mimae T, Sasada S, et al. Negative prognostic influence of micropapillary pattern in stage IA lung adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016:293–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezv058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dong Y, Li Y, Jin B, et al. Pathologic subtype-defined prognosis is dependent on both tumor stage and status of oncogenic driver mutations in lung adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget. 2017;8:82244–55.  https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19284.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hung JJ, Jeng WJ, Wu YC, Chou TY, Hsu WH. Factors predicting organ-specific distant metastasis in patients with completely resected lung adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7:58261–73.  https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.11338.
  13. 13.
    Dai C, Xie H, Kadeer X, et al. Relationship of lymph node micrometastasis and micropapillary component and their joint influence on prognosis of patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:1212–20.  https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000000901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park JK, Kim JJ, Moon SW, Lee KY. Lymph node involvement according to lung adenocarcinoma subtypes: lymph node involvement is influenced by lung adenocarcinoma subtypes. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:3903–10.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.08.132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagano T, Ishii G, Nagai K, et al. Structural and biological properties of a papillary component generating a micropapillary component in lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2010;67:282–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.04.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kamiya K, Hayashi Y, Douguchi J, et al. Histopathological features and prognostic significance of the micropapillary pattern in lung adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2008;21:992–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2008.79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang J, Liang Z, Gao J, et al. Pulmonary adenocarcinoma with a micropapillary pattern: a clinicopathological, immunophenotypic, and molecular analysis. Histopathology. 2011;59:1204–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04050.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsutsumida H, Nomoto M, Goto M, et al. A micropapillary pattern is predictive of a poor prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma, and reduced surfactant apoprotein A expression in the micropapillary pattern is an excellent indicator of a poor prognosis. Mod Pathol. 2007;20:638–47.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800780.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang Y, Mao Y, Yang L, et al. Prognostic factors in curatively resected pathological stage I lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Dis. 2017;12:5267–77.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.11.65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miyoshi T, Satoh Y, Okumura S, et al. Early-stage lung adenocarcinomas with a micropapillary pattern: a distinct pathologic marker for a significantly poor prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:101–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Makimoto Y, Nabeshima K, Iwasaki H, et al. Micropapillary pattern: a distinct pathological marker to subclassify tumours with a significantly poor prognosis within small peripheral lung adenocarcinoma (≤ 20 mm) with mixed bronchioloalveolar and invasive subtypes (Noguchi’s type C tumours). Histopathology. 2005;46:677–84.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02126.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sánchez-Mora N, Presmanes MC, Monroy V, et al. Micropapillary lung adenocarcinoma: a distinctive histologic subtype with prognostic significance. Patient series. Hum Pathol. 2008;39:324–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2007.05.029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    GATK. Retrieved 31 Mar 2018. https://software.broadinstitute.org/gatk/.
  24. 24.
    SnpEff. Retrieved 31 Mar 2018. http://snpeff.sourceforge.net/.
  25. 25.
    COSMIC. Retrieved 31 Mar 2018. https://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic.
  26. 26.
    Travis WD, Brambilla E, Nicholson AG, et al. WHO Panel. The 2015 World Health Organization classification of lung tumors: impact of genetic, clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:1243–60.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0000000000000630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldstraw P, Chansky K, Crowley J, et al. The IASLC lung cancer staging project: proposals for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (eighth) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:39–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2015.09.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nagai Y, Miyazawa H, Tanaka T, et al. Genetic heterogeneity of the epidermal growth factor receptor in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines revealed by a rapid and sensitive detection system: the peptide nucleic acid-locked nucleic acid PCR clamp. Cancer Res. 2005;65:7276–82.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ito M, Miyata Y, Kushitani K, et al. Increased risk of recurrence in resected EGFR-positive pN0M0 invasive lung adenocarcinoma. Thorac Cancer. 2018;9:1594–1602.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.12866.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Travis WD, Brambilla E, Muller-Hermelink HK, et al. Pathology and genetics: tumours of the lung, pleura, thymus, and Heart. IARC Press, Lyon, 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang J, Sun J, Zhang Z, et al. Protein overexpression and gene amplification of cellular mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor is associated with poor prognosis in micropapillary-predominant subtype pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2018;72:59–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2017.10.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Warth A, Penzel R, Lindenmaier H, et al. EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and ALK gene alterations in lung adenocarcinomas: patient outcome, interplay with morphology and immunophenotype. Eur Respir J. 2014;43:872–83.  https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00018013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marchetti A, Felicioni L, Malatesta S, et al. Clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring BRAF mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3574–9.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.35.9638.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suda K, Murakami I, Yu H, et al. Heterogeneity of EGFR aberrations and correlation with histological structures: analyses of therapy-naive isogenic lung cancer lesions with EGFR mutation. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:1711–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.05.017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Motoi N, Szoke J, Riely GJ, et al. Lung adenocarcinoma: modification of the 2004 WHO mixed subtype to include the major histologic subtype suggests correlations between papillary and micropapillary adenocarcinoma subtypes, EGFR mutations, and gene expression analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:810–27.  https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0b013e31815cb162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Matsumura M, Okudela K, Kojima Y, et al. A histopathological feature of EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinomas with highly malignant potential: an implication of micropapillary element. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0166795.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166795.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Song Z, Zhu H, Guo Z, et al. Correlation of EGFR mutation and predominant histologic subtype according to the new lung adenocarcinoma classification in Chinese patients. Med Oncol. 2013;30:645.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-013-0645-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cai YR, Dong YJ, Wu HB, et al. Micropapillary: a component more likely to harbour heterogeneous EGFR mutations in lung adenocarcinomas. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23755.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23755.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Takenaka T, Takenoyama M, Yamaguchi M, et al. Impact of the epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status on the post-recurrence survival of patients with surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47:550–5.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jeon JH, Kang CH, Kim HS, et al. Prognostic and predictive role of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in recurrent pulmonary adenocarcinoma after curative resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47:556–62.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yatabe Y, Matsuo K, Mitsudomi T. Heterogeneous distribution of EGFR mutations is extremely rare in lung adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2972–77.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.3906.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yatabe Y, Takahashi T, Mitsudomi T. Epidermal growth factor receptor gene amplification is acquired in association with tumor progression of EGFR-mutated lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2008;68:2106–11.  https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-07-5211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoto Kishi
    • 1
  • Masaoki Ito
    • 1
  • Yoshihiro Miyata
    • 1
  • Akinori Kanai
    • 2
  • Yoshinori Handa
    • 1
  • Yasuhiro Tsutani
    • 1
  • Kei Kushitani
    • 3
  • Yukio Takeshima
    • 3
  • Morihito Okada
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and MedicineHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Oncology and Leukemia Program Project, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and MedicineHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Pathology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health SciencesHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations