Abstract P1-03-13: Immunohistochemistry cannot be used to detect PD-L1/JAK-2 amplification
Authors: Linnaus ME , Kosiorek H , Ocal IT , Dixon L , Barrett MT , Gawryletz CD , Anderson KS , McCullough AE , McEachron TA , Pockaj BA 
Published: March 2017

Introduction: We have previously identified a 9p24.1 amplicon targeting PD-L1/JAK2 (PDJ) in subset (26.7%) of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. The PDJ amplicon is common in newly diagnosed and chemotherapy treated TNBCs and is associated with a worse prognosis. Our goal in this study was to determine whether immunohistochemistry (IHC) evaluation could identify those patients who harbor the PDJ amplicon.

Methods: TNBC patients from 1999 to 2015 whose tumors were flow-sorted and evaluated by array-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) were identified; paraffin slides were obtained for IHC staining evaluation of JAK-2, phosphorylated STAT3 (pSTAT3), and PD-L1. Pathologic analysis consisted of scoring the stains for intensity (0-3+) and the relative percent of tumor cells with positive staining; positive score was defined as 3+ for any percent staining. Statistical analysis of IHC staining was performed to determine association with the PDJ amplicon defined by focal 9p24.1 copy number gain with CGH log2ratios of &gt;1.0 for each sorted TNBC sample.

Results: Eleven of 43 TNBC patients evaluable by IHC had the PDJ amplicon. There was no association between PDJ amplification and IHC staining for JAK-2, pSTAT3, or PD-L1 regardless of staining intensity or percentage tumor cells positive. Table 1 describes PDJ amplicon status and positivity for JAK2, pSTAT3 and PD-L1. Of PDJ-positive samples, 64%, stained positive for JAK2, 27% positive for pSTAT3, but 0% for PD-L1 in tumor cells. However, in the PDJ-negative group, 69% still stained positive for JAK2, 19% positive for pSTAT3, and 9% for PD-L1.

Table 1: PDJ amplicon status and IHC staining JAK2 (3+) (n;%)pSTAT3 (3+) (n;%)PD-L1 (3+) (n;%)PDJ - (n=32)22;69%6;19%3;9%PDJ + (n=11)7;64%3;27%0;0%

JAK2: Most PDJ-positive samples (10/11, 91%) showed some JAK-2 staining. Although one had only 1+ staining at 5% of the cells, the majority (7/11, 64%) had staining of 3+ and &gt;10% of the cells with 2 patients demonstrating 3+ staining of 75% and 90% of the cells. However, those patients without the PDJ amplicon also exhibited JAK2 staining, with 66% (n= 22) of PDJ-negative cases staining strongly for JAK-2 (3+) and &gt; 10% of cells.

pSTAT3: All but one PDJ-positive case demonstrated some staining (1+ or greater) for pSTAT3; the staining intensity and percent positivity were much less than the JAK-2 staining with only 2 cases (18%) having 3+ staining of &gt; 10%. Similar staining was seen in the PDJ-negative cohort; 75% of PDJ-negative patients had some pSTAT3 staining (1+ or greater) and 1 patient (5%) exhibited 3+ staining &gt; 10%.

PD-L1: Finally, the PD-L1 staining was low overall with only 18% of PDJ-positive cases demonstrating some staining for PD-L1. Notably, only one case stained 3+ with 20% positivity while the majority of the samples had a 2+ intensity encompassing 5-50% of the cells.

Conclusions: IHC staining for JAK2, pSTAT3, or PD-L1 was not associated with the presence of the PDJ amplicon. Notably positive IHC staining for JAK2 was observed for both PDJ-positive and PDJ-negative tumor cells, thereby nullifying its application as a screening tool for PDJ amplification. Alternative methods, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization, are needed to identify PDJ-positive patients for further study.

Citation Format: Linnaus ME, Kosiorek H, Ocal IT, Dixon L, Barrett MT, Gawryletz CD, Anderson KS, McCullough AE, McEachron TA, Pockaj BA. Immunohistochemistry cannot be used to detect PD-L1/JAK-2 amplification [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-03-13.