Predictive diagnosis in breast cancer - What‘s new in 2018?
Authors:
Aleš Ryška
Authors‘ workplace:
Fingerlandův ústav patologie LF UK a FN, Hradec Králové
Published in:
Čes.-slov. Patol., 54, 2018, No. 1, p. 13-16
Category:
Reviews Article
Overview
Detection of predictive markers in breast carcinoma has undergone significant changes, the most important ones - at least in the context of Czech Republic - are related to the detection of HER2 - detection of both over-expression of oncoprotein HER-2/neu and amplification of the c-erbB-2 gene, respectively. In the Czech Republic, immunohistochemical testing is performed as a method of first choice, followed, if needed, by in situ hybridization. The update of the guidelines published in 2013 decreased the threshold for positive tumor cells from 30% to 10%, shifted the threshold for gene amplification (HER2/CEP17 ratio) from 2.2 to 2.0 and slightly changed criteria for classification of expression as 2+. These changes resulted in relatively significant increase of cases classified as „borderline“ or „equivocal“, requiring confirmation by in situ hybridization. In order to reduce the risk of false results, the cases diagnosed as positive in small (primary) laboratories, have to be confirmed in one of the large central laboratories. This confirmation of HER2 positivity is required before targeted therapy can be started.
HER2 testing is recommended in core-cut biopsies virtually always; it is absolutely essential in patients undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy. In patients treated primarily by surgery can be the testing performed either in the core cut biopsy or in the final resection specimen. However, it should be kept in mind that the accuracy of some parameters in the core-cut biopsies may be limited, even in cases not influenced by the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACHT). The degree of concordance between results of molecular tests in the core-cut biopsy and resection specimen can achieve only 67 % and the precise concordance of histological typing reaches only 84 %, respectively; the concordance of HER2 expression, on the other hand, reaches more than 90%. In patients with positive HER2 result in core-cut biopsy, it is no longer required to repeat the testing in the resection specimen, whereas in case of HER2 negative core-cut biopsy, it is required to repeat the test from resection specimen to minimize the risk of false negative result.
The probability of pathological complete response (pCR) varies in individual breast carcinoma subtypes - it reaches 27-51% in triple-negative and HER2+ cases, while in hormone-dependent tumors, namely in those with low proliferative activity, it is significantly lower. Even within the HER2+ carcinoma subgroup, the probability of pCR varies. HER2+ tumors co-expressing ER and PR have a lower rate of pCR than HER2+ carcinomas without co-expression of hormonal receptors. Carcinomas expressing high-molecular weight keratins (CK14, CK 5/6) with basal phenotype or tumors with mutations of HER2/AKT signal pathway (PI3K, PTEN) have also lower response to treatment and worse prognosis.
Keywords:
breast carcinoma – HER2 – predictive diagnostics – molecular pathology – neoadjuvant treatment – pathologic response
Sources
1. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 241-256.
2. Singh K, Tantravahi U, Lomme MM, Pasquariello T, Steinhoff M, Sung CJ. Updated 2013 College of American Pathologists/American Society of Clinical Oncology (CAP/ASCO) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) testing increase HER2 positive and HER2 equivocal breast cancer cases; retrospective study of HER2 FISH results of 836 invasive breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016; 157: 405-411.
3. Varga Z, Noske A. Impact of Modified 2013 ASCO/CAP Guidelines on HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer. One Year Experience. PloS one 2015; 10: e0140652.
4. Muller KE, Marotti JD, Memoli VA, Wells WA, Tafe LJ. Impact of the 2013 ASCO/CAP HER2 Guideline Updates at an Academic Medical Center That Performs Primary HER2 FISH Testing: Increase in Equivocal Results and Utility of Reflex Immunohistochemistry. Am J Clin Pathol 2015; 144: 247-252.
5. Bahreini F, Soltanian AR, Mehdipour P. A meta-analysis on concordance between immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to detect HER2 gene overexpression in breast cancer. Breast cancer 2015; 22: 615-625.
6. Persons DL, Tubbs RR, Cooley LD, et al. HER-2 fluorescence in situ hybridization: results from the survey program of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130: 325-331.
7. Rosa M, Khazai L. Comparison of HER2 testing among laboratories: Our experience with review cases retested at Moffitt Cancer Center in a two-year period. Breast J 2017; in press.
8. Krop I, Ismaila N, Andre F, et al. Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 2838-2847.
9. Daveau C, Baulies S, Lalloum M, et al. Histological grade concordance between diagnostic core biopsy and corresponding surgical specimen in HR-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2014; 110: 2195-2200.
10. Lee AH, Key HP, Bell JA, Hodi Z, Ellis IO. Concordance of HER2 status assessed on needle core biopsy and surgical specimens of invasive carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology 2012; 60: 880-884.
11. Tsuda H, Kurosumi M, Umemura S, Yamamoto S, Kobayashi T, Osamura RY. HER2 testing on core needle biopsy specimens from primary breast cancers: interobserver reproducibility and concordance with surgically resected specimens. BMC cancer 2010; 10: 534.
12. Prat A, Pineda E, Adamo B, et al. Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Breast 2015; 24(Suppl 2): S26-35.
13. Loibl S. Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer: maximizing pathologic complete response rates to improve prognosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 27: 85-91.
14. Loibl S, Denkert C, von Minckwitz G. Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer--Clinical and research perspective. Breast 2015; 24 Suppl 2: S73-7.
15. Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A, et al. PIK3CA mutations are associated with lower rates of pathologic complete response to anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (her2) therapy in primary HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 3212-3220.
16. Ryska A. Molecular pathology in real time. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2016; 35: 129-140.
17. Chung A, Choi M, Han BC, et al. Basal Protein Expression Is Associated With Worse Outcome and Trastuzamab Resistance in HER2+ Invasive Breast Cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2015; 15: 448-457 e2.
18. Martin-Castillo B, Lopez-Bonet E, Buxo M, et al. Cytokeratin 5/6 fingerprinting in HER2-positive tumors identifies a poor prognosis and trastuzumab-resistant basal-HER2 subtype of breast cancer. Oncotarget 2015; 6: 7104-7122.
Labels
Medical genetics Anatomical pathology Forensic medical examiner ToxicologyArticle was published in
Czecho-Slovak Pathology
2018 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- Evaluation of inflammatory cells (tumor infiltrating lymphocytes – TIL) in malignant melanoma
- Predictive diagnosis in breast cancer - What‘s new in 2018?
- Dedifferentiated carcinoma of the ovary. A case report
- Prediction of EGFR blockade responses in metastatic colorectal carcinoma