Over the last decade, the immune checkpoint blockade targeting the programmed death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has improved progression-free and overall survival of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PD-L1 tumor expression, along with tumor mutational burden, is currently being explored as a predictive biomarker for responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, lung cancer patients may have insufficient tumor tissue samples and the high bleeding risk often prevents additional biopsies and, as a consequence, immunohistological evaluation of PD-L1 expression. In addition, PD-L1 shows a dynamic expression profile and can be influenced by intratumoral heterogeneity as well as the immune cell infiltrate in the tumor and its microenvironment, influencing the response rate to PD-1/PD-L1 axis ICIs. Therefore, to identify subgroups of patients with advanced NSCLC that will most likely benefit from ICI therapies, molecular characterization of PD-L1 expression in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) might be supportive. In this review, we highlight the use of CTCs as a complementary diagnostic tool for PD-L1 expression analysis in advanced NSCLC patients. In addition, we examine technical issues of PD-L1 measurement in tissue as well as in CTCs.

BACKGROUND: In human body fluids, microRNA (miRNA) can be found as circulating cell-free miRNA (cfmiRNA), as well as secreted into extracellular vesicles (EVmiRNA). miRNAs are being intensively evaluated as minimally invasive liquid biopsy biomarkers in patients with cancer. The growing interest in developing clinical assays for circulating miRNA necessitates careful consideration of confounding effects of preanalytical and analytical parameters. METHODS: By using reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS), we compared extraction efficiencies of 5 different protocols for cfmiRNA and 2 protocols for EVmiRNA isolation in a multicentric manner. The efficiency of the different extraction methods was evaluated by measuring exogenously spiked cel-miR-39 and 6 targeted miRNAs in plasma from 20 healthy individuals. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the tested methods. Although column-based extraction methods were highly effective for the isolation of endogenous miRNA, phenol extraction combined with column-based miRNA purification and ultracentrifugation resulted in lower quality and quantity of isolated miRNA. Among all extraction methods, the ubiquitously expressed miR-16 was represented with high abundance when compared with other targeted miRNAs. In addition, the use of miR-16 as an endogenous control for normalization of quantification cycle values resulted in a decreased variability of column-based cfmiRNA extraction methods. Cluster analysis of normalized NGS counts clearly indicated a method-dependent bias. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of plasma miRNA extraction methods affects the selection of potential miRNA marker candidates and mechanistic interpretation of results, which should be done with caution, particularly across studies using different protocols.

Liquid biopsy holds great promise to complement traditional analysis on cancerous tissue during clinical management of cancer: screening of patients, (early) disease diagnosis, prognosis, therapy selection as well as early response to treatment and disease monitoring. Among emerging circulating biomarkers, cell-free miRNA (cfmiRNA) may have potential in detecting lung cancer and following the course of the disease. Furthermore, several studies highlighted the possibility to utilize these regulatory RNAs to obtain prognostic information as well as to verify patient's response towards treatment. However, despite these findings, cfmiRNA is not used in the clinical practice as biomarkers to date, since their clinical utility and validity has not been confirmed in prospective clinical studies yet. In addition, there is no consensus on standardized (pre)analytical procedures. In this review, we present an overview of cfmiRNA biomarker candidates for clinical management of lung cancer and we discuss the issue of assay standardization.

Background: Among emerging circulating biomarkers, miRNA has the potential to detect lung cancer and follow the course of the disease. However, miRNA analysis deserves further standardization before implementation into clinical trials or practice. Here, we performed international ring experiments to explore (pre)-analytical factors relevant to the outcome of miRNA blood tests in the context of the EU network CANCER-ID. Methods: Cell-free (cfmiRNA) and extracellular vesicle-derived miRNA (EVmiRNA) were extracted using the miRNeasy Serum/Plasma Advanced, and the ExoRNeasy Maxi kit, respectively, in a plasma cohort of 27 NSCLC patients and 20 healthy individuals. Extracted miRNA was investigated using small RNA sequencing and hybridization platforms. Validation of the identified miRNA candidates was performed using quantitative PCR. Results: We demonstrate the highest read counts in healthy individuals and NSCLC patients using QIAseq. Moreover, QIAseq showed 15.9% and 162.9% more cfmiRNA and EVmiRNA miRNA counts, respectively, in NSCLC patients compared to healthy control samples. However, a systematic comparison of selected miRNAs revealed little agreement between high-throughput platforms, thus some miRNAs are detected with one technology, but not with the other. Adding to this, 35% (9 of 26) of selected miRNAs in the cfmiRNA and 42% (11 of 26) in the EVmiRNA fraction were differentially expressed by at least one qPCR platform; about half of the miRNAs (54%) were concordant for both platforms. Conclusions: Changing of (pre)-analytical methods of miRNA analysis has a significant impact on blood test results and is therefore a major confounding factor. In addition, to confirm miRNA biomarker candidates screening studies should be followed by targeted validation using an independent platform or technology.

Purpose We investigated whether a 52-gene signature was associated with transplant-free survival and other clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in the IPF-PRO Registry, which enrolled patients who were and were not taking antifibrotic therapy. Methods The 52-gene risk signature was implemented to classify patients as being at “high risk” or “low risk” of disease progression and mortality. Transplant-free survival and other outcomes were compared between patients with a low-risk versus high-risk signature. Results The 52-gene signature classified 159 patients as at low risk and 86 as at high risk; in these groups, respectively, 56.6% and 51.2% used antifibrotic therapy at enrollment. Among those taking antifibrotic therapy, patients with a low-risk versus high-risk signature were at decreased risk of death, a composite of lung transplant or death, and a composite of decline in DLco % predicted > 15%, lung transplant, or death. Similar results were observed in the overall cohort. Conclusions These data suggest that the 52-gene signature can be used in patients with IPF treated with antifibrotic therapy to distinguish patients at higher risk of disease progression and mortality.