Stephanie Craig

Dr. Stephanie Craig


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
16 July 2020 in Molecular Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APAmélie Viratham Pulsawatdi
Amélie Viratham Pulsawatdi
SCStephanie Craig
Stephanie Craig
VBVictoria Bingham
Victoria Bingham
KMKris McCombe
Kris McCombe
MHMatthew P. Humphries
Matthew P. Humphries
Manuel Salto-TellezManuel Salto-Tellez
Manuel Salto-Tellez
Multiplex immunofluorescence is a powerful tool for the simultaneous detection of tissue‐based biomarkers, revolutionising traditional immunohistochemistry. The Opal methodology allows up to eight biomarkers to be measured concomitantly without cross‐reactivity, permitting identification of different cell populations within the tumour microenvironment. In this study, we aimed to validate a multiplex immunofluorescence workflow in two complementary multiplex panels and evaluate the tumour immune microenvironment in colorectal cancer (CRC) formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded tissue. We stained CRC and tonsil samples using Opal multiplex immunofluorescence on a Leica BOND RX immunostainer. We then acquired images on an Akoya Vectra Polaris and performed multispectral unmixing using inform. Antibody panels were validated on tissue microarray sections containing cores from six normal tissue types, using qupath for image analysis. Comparisons between chromogenic immunohistochemistry and multiplex immunofluorescence on consecutive sections from the same tissue microarray showed significant correlation (rs > 0.9, P‐value < 0.0001), validating both panels. We identified many factors that influenced the quality of the acquired fluorescent images, including biomarker co‐expression, staining order, Opal‐antibody pairing, sample thickness, multispectral unmixing and biomarker detection order during image analysis. Overall, we report the optimisation and validation of a multiplex immunofluorescence process, from staining to image analysis, ensuring assay robustness. Our multiplex immunofluorescence protocols permit the accurate detection of multiple immune markers in various tissue types, using a workflow that enables rapid processing of samples, above and beyond previous workflows.

20 March 2019 in British Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SCStephanie Craig
Stephanie Craig
LALesley A. Anderson
Lesley A. Anderson
ASAndrew Schache
Andrew Schache
MMMichael Moran
Michael Moran
LGLaura Graham
Laura Graham
JJJacqueline A. James
Jacqueline A. James
Background TNM8 staging for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) surrogates p16 immunohistochemistry for HPV testing. Patients with p16+ OPSCC may lack HPV aetiology. Here, we evaluate the suitability of TNM8 staging for guiding prognosis in such patients. Methods HPV status was ascertained using p16 immunohistochemistry and high-risk HPV RNA and DNA in situ hybridisation. Survival by stage in a cohort of OPSCC patients was evaluated using TNM7/TNM8 staging. Survival of p16+/HPV− patients was compared to p16 status. Results TNM8 staging was found to improve on TNM7 (log rank p = 0·0190 for TNM8 compared with p = 0·0530 for TNM7) in p16+ patients. Patients who tested p16+ but were HPV− (n = 20) had significantly reduced five-year survival (33%) compared to p16+ patients (77%) but not p16− patients (35%). Cancer stage was reduced in 95% of p16+/HPV− patients despite having a mortality rate twice (HR 2.66 [95% CI: 1.37–5.15]) that of p16+/HPV+ patients under new TNM8 staging criteria. Conclusion Given the significantly poorer survival of p16+/HPV− OPSCCs, these data provide compelling evidence for use of an HPV-specific test for staging classification. This has particular relevance in light of potential treatment de-escalation that could expose these patients to inappropriately reduced treatment intensity as treatment algorithms evolve.

13 August 2020 in Histopathology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MLMaurice B Loughrey
Maurice B Loughrey
JMJason McGrath
Jason McGrath
HCHelen G Coleman
Helen G Coleman
PBPeter Bankhead
Peter Bankhead
PMPerry Maxwell
Perry Maxwell
JJJacqueline A James
Jacqueline A James
Aims: Establishing the mismatch repair (MMR) status of colorectal cancers is important to enable the detection of underlying Lynch syndrome and inform prognosis and therapy. Current testing typically involves either polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐based microsatellite instability (MSI) testing or MMR protein immunohistochemistry (IHC). The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a large, population‐based cohort of stage 2 and 3 colon cancer cases in Northern Ireland.Methods and results: The study used the Promega pentaplex assay to determine MSI status and a four‐antibody MMR IHC panel. IHC was applied to tumour tissue microarrays with triplicate tumour sampling, and assessed manually. Of 593 cases with available MSI and MMR IHC results, 136 (22.9%) were MSI‐high (MSI‐H) and 135 (22.8%) showed abnormal MMR IHC. Concordance was extremely high, with 97.1% of MSI‐H cases showing abnormal MMR IHC, and 97.8% of cases with abnormal IHC showing MSI‐H status. Under‐representation of tumour epithelial cells in samples from heavily inflamed tumours resulted in misclassification of several cases with abnormal MMR IHC as microsatellite‐stable. MMR IHC revealed rare cases with unusual patterns of MMR protein expression, unusual combinations of expression loss, or secondary clonal loss of expression, as further illustrated by repeat immunostaining on whole tissue sections.Conclusions: MSI PCR testing and MMR IHC can be considered to be equally proficient tests for establishing MMR/MSI status, when there is awareness of the potential pitfalls of either method. The choice of methodology may depend on available services and expertise.

25 March 2018 in Histopathology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MLMaurice B Loughrey
Maurice B Loughrey
PBPeter Bankhead
Peter Bankhead
HCHelen G Coleman
Helen G Coleman
RHRyan S Hagan
Ryan S Hagan
SCStephanie Craig
Stephanie Craig
MSManuel Salto‐Tellez
Manuel Salto‐Tellez

20 July 2020 in British Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SCStephanie Craig
Stephanie Craig
MHMatthew P. Humphries
Matthew P. Humphries
MAMatthew Alderdice
Matthew Alderdice
VBVictoria Bingham
Victoria Bingham
SRSusan D. Richman
Susan D. Richman
Manuel Salto-TellezManuel Salto-Tellez
Manuel Salto-Tellez
Background: Immunohistochemical quantification of the immune response is prognostic for colorectal cancer (CRC). Here, we evaluate the suitability of alternative immune classifiers on prognosis and assess whether they relate to biological features amenable to targeted therapy. Methods: Overall survival by immune (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20 and FOXP3) and immune-checkpoint (ICOS, IDO-1 and PD-L1) biomarkers in independent CRC cohorts was evaluated. Matched mutational and transcriptomic data were interrogated to identify associated biology. Results: Determination of immune-cold tumours by combined low-density cell counts of CD3, CD4 and CD8 immunohistochemistry constituted the best prognosticator across stage II–IV CRC, particularly in patients with stage IV disease (HR 1.98 [95% CI: 1.47–2.67]). These immune-cold CRCs were associated with tumour hypoxia, confirmed using CAIX immunohistochemistry (P = 0.0009), which may mediate disease progression through common biology (KRAS mutations, CRIS-B subtype and SPP1 mRNA overexpression). Conclusions: Given the significantly poorer survival of immune-cold CRC patients, these data illustrate that assessment of CD4-expressing cells complements low CD3 and CD8 immunohistochemical quantification in the tumour bulk, potentially facilitating immunophenotyping of patient biopsies to predict prognosis. In addition, we found immune-cold CRCs to associate with a difficult-to-treat, poor prognosis hypoxia signature, indicating that these patients may benefit from hypoxia-targeting clinical trials.

16 October 2017 in Oncotarget
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VBVictoria Bingham
Victoria Bingham
LMLeanne McIlreavey
Leanne McIlreavey
CGChristine Greene
Christine Greene
EOEdwina O’dOherty
Edwina O’dOherty
RCRebecca Clarke
Rebecca Clarke
JJJacqueline James
Jacqueline James
Immunohistochemistry remains the overwhelming technique of choice for test biomarker evaluation in both clinical or research settings when using formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue sections. However, validations can be complex with significant issues about specificity, sensitivity and reproducibility. The vast array of commercially available antibodies from many vendors may also lead to non-standard approaches which are difficult to cross-reference. In contrast mRNA detection, by in situ hybridization (ISH) with sequence specific probes, offers a realistic alternative, with less validation steps and more stringent and reproducible assessment criteria. In the present study mRNA ISH was evaluated in prospectively and retrospectively collected FFPE samples within a cancer biobank setting. Three positive control probes, POLR2A, PPIB and UBC were applied to FFPE sections from a range of tumour types in FFPE whole-face (prospective collection) or TMA (retrospective collection) formats and evaluated semi-quantitatively and by image analysis. Results indicate that mRNA can be robustly evaluated by ISH in prospectively and retrospectively collected tissue samples. Furthermore, for 2 important test biomarkers, PD-L1 and c-MET, we show that mRNA ISH is a technology that can be applied with confidence in the majority of tissue samples because there are quantifiable levels of control probes indicating overall mRNA integrity.