Multiparametric immunohistochemical analysis in cancer diagnosis (literary review)

Introduction. Multiparametric comparative analysis of clinical and molecular genetic biomarkers of malignant tumors has strong diagnostic and prognostic potentials and is a prerequisite for the development of personalized medicine. This approach makes it possible not only to simultaneously detect the expression of several tumor biomarkers, but also to obtain data on their spatial distribution in tissues examined, as well as to estimate the mutual location of tumor cells and tumor microenvironment expressing specific biomarkers. Thus, multiparametric immunohistochemical analysis (IHCA), which allows not only confirming the specific disease, but also carrying out 3D imaging of biopsy specimens and analyzing the spatial organization of tumor tissue, as well as the expression rates of biomarkers at the level of individual cells, opens wide prospects in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

Aim. Systematizing data on the potential of multiparametric IHCA for cancer diagnosis and development of the personalized approach to cancer therapy.

Results. Multiparametric IHCA allows estimating the heterogeneity of the tumor at the level of molecular subtypes, as well as the heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment. These data make it possible to predict tumor development, determine its metastatic potential, and select an effective strategy for individual therapy.

Conclusion. This review analyzes the use of multiparametric IHCA for the detection of malignant tumors and shows its high potential for the differentiation of tumors and the study of tumor microenvironment. This ensures effective selection of the therapeutic strategy and accurate assessment of the response to therapy.

1. Füzéry A.K., Levin J., Chan M.M., Chan D.W. Translation of proteomic biomarkers into FDA approved cancer diagnostics: Issues and challenges. Clin Proteomics 2013;10(1):13. DOI: 10.1186/1559-0275-10-13

2. Landegren U., Hammond M. Cancer diagnostics based on plasma protein biomarkers: Hard times but great expectations. Mol Oncol 2021;15(6):1715–26. DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.12809

3. Poore G.D., Kopylova E., Zhu Q. et al. Microbiome analyses of blood and tissues suggest cancer diagnostic approach. Nature 2020;579(7800):567–74. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2095-1

4. Álvez M.B., Edfors F., von Feilitzen K. et al. Next generation pancancer blood proteome profiling using proximity extension assay. Nat Commun 2023;14(1):4308. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-39765-y

5. Sheng W., Zhang C., Mohiuddin T.M. et al. Multiplex immunofluorescence: A powerful tool in cancer immunotherapy. Int J Mol Sci 2023;24(4):3086. DOI: 10.3390/ijms24043086

6. Cheung A.M., Wang D., Liu K. et al. Quantitative single-cell analysis of immunofluorescence protein multiplex images illustrates biomarker spatial heterogeneity within breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res 2021;23(1):114. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-021-01475-y

7. Yagnik G., Liu Z., Rothschild K.J., Lim M.J. Highly multiplexed immunohistochemical MALDI-MS imaging of biomarkers in tissues. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2021;32(4):977–88. DOI: 10.1021/jasms.0c00473

8. Abdullahi Sidi F., Bingham V., Craig S.G. et al. PD-L1 multiplex and quantitative image analysis for molecular diagnostics. Cancers (Basel) 2020;13(1):29. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13010029

9. Sanchez K., Kim I., Chun B. et al. Multiplex immunofluorescence to measure dynamic changes in tumorinfiltrating lymphocytes and PD-L1 in early-stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2021;23(1):2. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-020-01378-4

10. Mezheyeuski A., Micke P., Martín-Bernabé A. et al. The immune landscape of colorectal cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(21): 5545. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13215545

11. Zhang W., Song Z.J., Zhang B.Y. et al. Multiplex immunohistochemistry indicates biomarkers in colorectal cancer. Neoplasma 2021;68(6):1272–82. DOI: 10.4149/neo_2021_210312N324

12. Tsujikawa T., Kumar S., Borkar R.N. et al. Quantitative multiplex immunohistochemistry reveals myeloid-inflamed tumor-immune complexity associated with poor prognosis. Cell Rep 2017;19(1):203–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.037

13. Yagi Y., Aly R.G., Tabata K. et al. Three-dimensional histologic, immunohistochemical, and multiplex immunofluorescence analyses of dynamic vessel co-option of spread through air spaces in lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2020;15(4):589–600. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.12.112

14. Eliyatkın N., Yalçın E., Zengel B. et al. Molecular classification of breast carcinoma: From traditional, old-fashioned way to a new age, and a new way. J Breast Health 2015;11(2):59–66. DOI: 10.5152/tjbh.2015.1669

15. Upadhaya S., Neftelinov S.T., Hodge J., Campbell J. Challenges and opportunities in the PD1/PDL1 inhibitor clinical trial landscape. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2022;21(7):482–3. DOI: 10.1038/d41573-022-00030-4

16. Lu S., Stein J.E., Rimm D.L. et al. Comparison of biomarker modalities for predicting response to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2019;5(8):1195–204. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1549

17. Schmid P., Cortes J., Pusztai L. et al. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2020;382(9):810–21. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549

18. Pagès F., Mlecnik B., Marliot F. et al. International validation of the consensus Immunoscore for the classification of colon cancer: A prognostic and accuracy study. Lancet 2018;391(10135):2128–39. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30789-X

19. Ghahremani P., Li Y., Kaufman A. et al. Deep learning-inferred multiplex immunofluorescence for immunohistochemical image quantification. Nat Mach Intell 2022;4(4):401–12. DOI: 10.1038/s42256-022-00471-x