Evaluation Of Immunohistochemistry Assays Against C-Met And Hgf To Guide Companion Diagnostic Decisions

Proceedings: AACR Annual Meeting 2014; April 5-9, 2014; San Diego, CA Establishing reagent specificity during immunohistochemistry (IHC) based biomarker or companion diagnostic (CDx) assays is challenging. Antibody specificity is dictated in part by recognition of 3D confirmation of the target binding, target activity, and and/or epitope's post-translation modifications. Fixation effects pose additional challenges to epitope recognition during IHC assay. For these reasons, different antibodies against the same target biomarker may demonstrate diversity in prevalence, range, and staining patterns over identical specimens. Thus, determining reagent specificity is a critical part of IHC and CDx assay development. Interpretation is further complicated by the pattern of biomarker expression in specific cell types (e.g. tumor v. stroma) or cell compartments (e.g. membrane v. cytosol). These factors may be critical to associate the drug's mechanism of action with efficacy. In the companion diagnostic (CDx) setting, the mechanism of the drug, epitope recognition, and staining features used to interpret and quantify the biomarker to predict patient response requires an evidence-based approach, where all features of an IHC assay are considered and tied empirically to patient response to the drug. In this study, we demonstrate these complexities in gastric cancer specimens, by comparing IHC assays using two antibodies that recognize either intracellular or extracellular domains of c-Met receptor (SP44/ C-term and EP154Y/ N-term) in the context of the ligand for c-Met, Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF). Therapeutic antibodies targeting c-Met [such as MetMab® (OA-5D5/ Roche)]; or HGF directly [such as Rilotumumab (AMG 102/ Amgen)], have directly linked c-Met protein expression as revealed by IHC to patient response. Thus, we hypothesized that a link between c-Met protein expression and HGF should be discernible. To test this hypothesis, we used image analysis approaches to determine the staining features of each IHC assay in comparison to each other. Surprisingly, we found little concordance between the two c-Met antibodies in evaluating c-Met and HGF expression. We found distinct populations of c-Met expressing vs HGF expressing specimens, whose HGF-c-Met association differed with the c-Met assay used. We examined the tissue and cell compartmentalization, and identified staining features of each reagent which would aid or impede in interpretation strategies for understanding the relationship between c-Met and HGF. These results suggest that the epitope-specific features of each c-Met antibody determines the relationship with HGF expression, and how quantitative image analysis endpoints can be used to make critical decisions during the development of an IHC companion diagnostic. Note: This abstract was not presented at the meeting. Citation Format: Joseph S. Krueger, Brian Laffin, Holger Lange, Eric Neeley, Mirza Peljto, Mohamed Salama, Mahipal Suraneni, David Young. Evaluation of immunohistochemistry assays against c-Met and HGF to guide companion diagnostic decisions. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2842. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2842