METHODOLOGY: MCM2, 4, 5 and 7 genes expression profiles were evaluated in three cervical tissue samples each of normal cervix, human papillomavirus (HPV)-infected low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), using Human Transcriptome Array 2.0 and validated by nCounter® PanCancer Pathway NanoString Array. Immunohistochemical expression of MCM2 protein was semi-quantitatively assessed by histoscore in tissue microarrays containing 9 cases of normal cervix, 10 LSIL, 10 HSIL and 42 cases of SCC.
RESULTS: MCM2, 4, 5 and 7 genes expressions were upregulated with increasing fold change during the progression from LSIL to HSIL and the highest in SCC. MCM2 gene had the highest fold change in SCC compared to normal cervix. Immunohistochemically, MCM2 protein was localised in the nuclei of basal cells of normal cervical epithelium and dysplastic-neoplastic cells of CIN and SCC. There was a significant difference in MCM2 protein expression between the histological groups (P = 0.039), and histoscore was the highest in HSIL compared to normal cervix (P = 0.010).
CONCLUSION: The upregulation of MCM genes expressions in cervical carcinogenesis reaffirms MCM as a proliferative marker in DNA replication pathway, whereby proliferation of dysplastic and cancer cells become increasingly dysregulated and uncontrolled. A strong expression of MCM2 protein in HSIL may aid as a concatenated screening tool in detecting pre-cancerous cervical lesions.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor tissue EGFRm status was determined at screening using the central cobas tissue test or a local tissue test. Baseline circulating tumor (ct)DNA EGFRm status was retrospectively determined with the central cobas plasma test.
RESULTS: Of 994 patients screened, 556 were randomized (289 and 267 with central and local EGFR test results, respectively) and 438 failed screening. Of those randomized from local EGFR test results, 217 patients had available central test results; 211/217 (97%) were retrospectively confirmed EGFRm positive by central cobas tissue test. Using reference central cobas tissue test results, positive percent agreements with cobas plasma test results for Ex19del and L858R detection were 79% [95% confidence interval (CI), 74-84] and 68% (95% CI, 61-75), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) superiority with osimertinib over comparator EGFR-TKI remained consistent irrespective of randomization route (central/local EGFRm-positive tissue test). In both treatment arms, PFS was prolonged in plasma ctDNA EGFRm-negative (23.5 and 15.0 months) versus -positive patients (15.2 and 9.7 months).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support utility of cobas tissue and plasma testing to aid selection of patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC for first-line osimertinib treatment. Lack of EGFRm detection in plasma was associated with prolonged PFS versus patients plasma EGFRm positive, potentially due to patients having lower tumor burden.