Abstract
Lung cancer (LC) is the most fatal complication of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, the molecular pathogenesis of the development of LC from IPF is still unclear. Here, we report a case of IPF‐associated LC for which we investigated the genetic alterations between IPF and LC. We extracted formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded DNA from each part of the surgical lung tissue using a laser‐assisted microdissection technique. The mutations in each part were detected by next‐generation sequencing (NGS) using 72 lung cancer‐related mutation panels. Five mutations were found in IPF and four in LC. Almost all somatic mutations did not overlap between the IPF and LC regions. These findings suggest that IPF‐associated LC may not be a result of the accumulation of somatic mutations in the regenerated epithelium of the honeycomb lung in the IPF region.
Keywords: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, laser‐assisted microdissection, lung cancer, next‐generation sequencing, somatic mutation
Here, we report for the first time somatic mutations between the epithelium of IPF and LC sites detected by NGS using a laser‐assisted microdissection technique. Almost all somatic mutations did not overlap between the IPF and LC regions.

INTRODUCTION
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive fibrosing interstitial pneumonia that occurs primarily in older adults. It has a short median survival of three years following diagnosis. 1 , 2 Lung cancer (LC) is one of the most fatal comorbidities of IPF, with a prevalence of 4.4 to 48% in patients with IPF. 2 Previous reports have shown that point somatic mutations in the K‐ras and TP53 genes in the lung tissue of IPF‐associated LC may arise from regenerated alveolar epithelial cells and can lead to the development of LC. 3 Some IPF‐associated LC is associated with potentially targetable alterations such as BRAF mutations. 4 However, the detailed genomic mechanism of the pathogenesis of IPF‐associated LC remains unclear, and a specific targeted treatment has not been developed.
In this report, we investigated the differences in genetic mutations between the honeycomb lung and coexisting LC in an IPF‐associated LC patient with next‐generation sequencing (NGS) analysis using laser‐assisted microdissection (LMD).
CASE REPORT
A 69‐year‐old Japanese man was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma T1bN0M0 in the left lower lung one year after being diagnosed with IPF (Figure 1). Partial resection of the left lower lobe was performed. For clinical research purposes, the tumor DNA was extracted from the LC and epithelial cells of honeycomb lung formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) tissue (Figure 2) In particular, the epithelial cells in the honeycomb lung in IPF were collected using LMD (Figure 2). Sequencing analysis was performed with targeted NGS using an LC‐related mutation panel (Table 1). Using NGS analysis, five mutations (KDR, EPHA5, APC, CREBBP, and ERBB2) were detected in the IPF sample, and four mutations (EPHA5, PKHD1, RB1, and KEAP1) were detected in the LC sample (Table 2). Although one mutation (EPHA5) overlapped between the IPF and LC samples, there was no overlap between the other mutations.
FIGURE 1.

Chest radiographs at the time of diagnosis of lung cancer in the patient with IPF. (a) Chest X‐ray and (b) chest computed tomography (CT) images of the tumor slice in the left lower lobe, and (c) another left lower lobe slice. Subpleural and basal predominant fibrosis and honeycomb lung are shown
FIGURE 2.

Hematoxylin and eosin staining showing the histopathological findings in the tumor region and honeycomb lung in the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) region. (a) The tumor is in close proximity to the honeycomb lung. (b, d) The honeycomb lung is composed of cystic fibrotic airspaces that are replaced by bronchiolar epithelium. (c) Squamous cell carcinoma is shown in the tumor region
TABLE 1.
Lung cancer‐related mutation panel gene list
| AKT1 | CDKN2B | FGFR1 | KMT2D | NF1 | PIK3R1 | RIT1 | TSC1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALK | CREBBP | FGFR2 | KRAS | NFE2L2 | PIK3R2 | ROS1 | U2AF1 |
| AMER1 | CTNNB1 | FGFR3 | LRP1B | NOTCH1 | PKHD1 | RUNX1T1 | |
| APC | DDR2 | FHIT | MAP2K1 | NRAS | PTEN | SETD2 | |
| ARID1A | EGFR | GRM8 | MDM2 | NTRK1 | PTPRD | SMAD4 | |
| ATM | EPHA5 | HRAS | MET | NTRK2 | RARB | SMARCA4 | |
| BAI3 | ERBB2 | JAK2 | MGA | NTRK3 | RASSF1 | SOX2 | |
| BAP1 | ERBB4 | KDR | MLH1 | PDGFRA | RB1 | STK11 | |
| BRAF | FBXO7 | KEAP1 | MUC16 | PIK3CA | RBM10 | TNFAIP3 | |
| CDKN2A | FBXW7 | KIT | MYC | PIK3CG | RET | TP53 | |
TABLE 2.
Genetic mutation analysis in IPF and associated lung cancer
| No. | Chr | Position | Mutation type | Gene | HGVS.c | HGVS.p | Clinical significance | VAF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPF | LC | |||||||||
| 1 | IPF | 4 | 55 955 965 | missense_variant | KDR | c.3197G>A | p.Arg1066His | No information | 0.021 | |
| 2 | IPF, LC | 4 | 66 231 683 | missense_variant | EPHA5 | c.2017T>A | p.Ser673Thr | Probably benign | 0.459 | 0.596 |
| 3 | IPF | 5 | 112 162 877 | missense_variant | APC | c.1481G>T | p.Ser494Ile | No information | 0.034 | |
| 4 | LC | 6 | 51 612 932 | missense_variant | PKHD1 | c.9482T>C | p.Val3161Ala | No information | 0.256 | |
| 5 | LC | 13 | 48 954 198 | stop_gained | RB1 | c.1399C>T | p.Arg467* | Pathogenic | 0.339 | |
| 6 | IPF | 16 | 3 860 664 | missense_variant | CREBBP | c.915C>G | p.Asn305Lys | No information | 0.032 | |
| 7 | IPF | 17 | 37 873 598 | missense_variant | ERBB2 | c.1763C>T | p.Ala588Val | No information | 0.022 | |
| 8 | LC | 19 | 10 602 620 | missense_variant | KEAP1 | c.958C>T | p.Arg320Trp | No information | 0.380 | |
Note: Content rate of the target cells; IPF:100.0%, LC:78.7%. *: Stop codon.
Abbreviations: Chr, chromosome; HGVS, human genome variation society; IPF, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; LC, lung cancer; VAF, variant allele frequency.
DISCUSSION
IPF is a chronic, progressive, and fatal fibrosing interstitial pneumonia of unknown cause. 1 LC is a major comorbidity of IPF and has a significant adverse impact on the survival of IPF patients. 5
IPF and LC share common pathogenetic features, such as increased proliferation rates, immune dysregulation, resistance to apoptosis, telomere abnormalities, epithelial‐mesenchymal transition, and fibroblast activation. 6 , 7 , 8 Furthermore, many studies have shown that the distribution of IPF‐associated LC is localized to the peripheral areas of the lower lobes that are associated with honeycomb lung. These are the areas where fibrosis is predominant, suggesting a histological association between IPF and LC. 9 Therefore, progressive bronchiolar proliferation in the fibrotic area could be a precursor of LC in IPF patients. 7 , 9 These reports suggest that IPF might be a precancerous lesion of LC. Therefore, in this study we investigated the molecular mechanisms of IPF‐associated LC to clarify the impact of somatic mutation accumulation in the IPF region in tumorigenesis.
In the IPF region reported here, we detected five genetic alterations that encoded the receptor tyrosine kinases (KDR, EPHA5, and ERBB2) and the tumor suppresser genes (APC and CREBBP). 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 In the LC region, we detected four genetic alterations that encoded the receptor tyrosine kinase (EPHA5), receptor‐like protein (PKHD1), cell cycle regulator (RB1), and a substrate adaptor protein that senses oxidative stress (KEAP1). 15 , 16 , 17 The variant allele frequencies at the IPF region were extremely low compared to those of LC. In our study, almost all somatic mutations did not overlap between the IPF and LC regions. Although the EPHA5 mutation was common in both tissues, it was considered to have less pathological significance because the information contained in the ClinVar database shows that it is probably benign. Another recent report showed that somatic alterations were not frequently shared between LC and the corresponding IPF tissue. 18 Therefore, IPF‐associated LC may be unlikely to be caused by a multistep accumulation of somatic alterations in the epithelium of honeycomb lung. There may be heterogeneity in the formation of IPF or LC in the lung tissue of IPF‐associated LC. Furthermore, the RB1 mutation was considered to have a strong impact on the development of LC because it has been reported as a pathogenic mutation in the ClinVar database.
In the present report, the LMD techniques was used for the first time, to assess the targeted honeycomb lung epithelial cells from lung biopsy sections to investigate genetic mutations. LMD techniques are useful for genomic analyses in heterogeneous tissue samples. 19 The present results of genetic mutations in each IPF and LC region, using LMD, were more precise than before.
Finally, our study has some limitations. The EPHA5 mutation might be a germline mutation. Since our case was not analyzed in pairs with normal tissues (e.g., blood), this possibility was not completely ruled out. In addition, variants could not be validated by different methods because of tissue limitations. Furthermore, it is necessary to investigate more cases with comprehensive NGS in the future since we investigated only one case with limited targeted NGS.
In conclusion, this is the first study to report that somatic mutations between the epithelium of IPF and LC regions were almost not overlapping by targeted NGS analysis using the LMD technique. Therefore, it is possible that IPF may not be a precancerous lesion of LC genetically, although pathogenic similarities in both have been reported.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Supporting information
Appendix S1: Supporting information.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank DNA Chip Research Inc. for technical assistance.
Iida Y, Gon Y, Nakanishi Y, et al. Genomic analysis between idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and associated lung cancer using laser‐assisted microdissection: A case report. Thorac Cancer. 2021;12:1449–1452. 10.1111/1759-7714.13924
REFERENCES
- 1. Raghu G, Collard HR, Egan JJ, Martinez FJ, Behr J, Brown KK, et al. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence‐based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183:788–824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Yoo H, Jeong BH, Chung MJ, Lee KS, Kwon OJ, Chung MP. Risk factors and clinical characteristics of lung cancer in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med. 2019;19:149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Takahashi T, Munakata M, Ohtsuka Y, Nisihara H, Nasuhara Y, Kamachi‐Satoh A, et al. Expression and alteration of ras and p53 proteins in patients with lung carcinoma accompanied by idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Cancer. 2002;95:624–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Hwang JA, Kim D, Chun SM, Bae SH, Song JS, Kim MY, et al. Genomic profiles of lung cancer associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. J Pathol. 2018;244:25–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Tomassetti S, Gurioli C, Ryu JH, Decker PA, Ravaglia C, Tantalocco P, et al. The impact of lung cancer on survival of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Chest. 2015;147:157–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Wolters PJ, Collard HR, Jones KD. Pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Annu Rev Pathol. 2014;9:157–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Saito A, Horie M, Micke P, Nagase T. The role of TGF‐β signaling in lung cancer associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(11):3611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Karampitsakos T, Tzilas V, Tringidou R, Steiropoulos P, Aidinis V, Papiris SA, et al. Lung cancer in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45:1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Caliò A, Lever V, Rossi A, Gilioli E, Brunelli M, Dubini A, et al. Increased frequency of bronchiolar histotypes in lung carcinomas associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Histopathology. 2017;71:725–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Terman BI, Carrion ME, Kovacs E, Rasmussen BA, Eddy RL, Shows TB. Identification of a new endothelial cell growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase. Oncogene. 1991;6:1677–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Fox GM, Holst PL, Chute HT, Lindberg RA, Janssen AM, Basu R, et al. cDNA cloning and tissue distribution of five human EPH‐like receptor protein‐tyrosine kinases. Oncogene. 1995;10:897–905. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Semba K, Kamata N, Toyoshima K, Yamamoto T. A v‐erbB‐related protooncogene, c‐erbB‐2, is distinct from the c‐erbB‐1/epidermal growth factor‐receptor gene and is amplified in a human salivary gland adenocarcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985;82:6497–501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Su LK, Steinbach G, Sawyer JC, Hindi M, Ward PA, Lynch PM. Genomic rearrangements of the APC tumor‐suppressor gene in familial adenomatous polyposis. Hum Genet. 2000;106:101–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Ding H, Zhao J, Zhang Y, Yu J, Liu M, Li X, et al. Systematic analysis of drug vulnerabilities conferred by tumor suppressor loss. Cell Rep. 2019;27:3331–44.e6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Ward CJ, Hogan MC, Rossetti S, Walker D, Sneddon T, Wang X, et al. The gene mutated in autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease encodes a large, receptor‐like protein. Nat Genet. 2002;30:259–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. DeCaprio JA, Ludlow JW, Lynch D, Furukawa Y, Griffin J, Piwnica‐Worms H, et al. The product of the retinoblastoma susceptibility gene has properties of a cell cycle regulatory element. Cell. 1989;58:1085–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Lo SC, Hannink M. PGAM5, a Bcl‐XL‐interacting protein, is a novel substrate for the redox‐regulated Keap1‐dependent ubiquitin ligase complex. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:37893–903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Otsubo K, Iwama E, Ijichi K, Kubo N, Yoneshima Y, Inoue H, et al. Paired genetic analysis by next‐generation sequencing of lung cancer and associated idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Cancer Sci. 2020;111:2482–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Nakanishi Y, Shimizu T, Tsujino I, Obana Y, Seki T, Fuchinoue F, et al. Semi‐nested real‐time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction methods for the successful quantitation of cytokeratin mRNA expression levels for the subtyping of non‐small‐cell lung carcinoma using paraffin‐embedded and microdissected lung biopsy specimens. Acta Histochem Cytochem. 2013;46:85–96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Appendix S1: Supporting information.
