Article

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

College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois, United States
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (Impact Factor: 2.88). 02/2007; 131(1):18-43. DOI: 10.1043/1543-2165(2007)131[18:ASOCCO]2.0.CO;2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Purpose To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. Methods ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. Results The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. Recommendations The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to > 10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing.

2 Followers
 · 
160 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Accurate assessment of HER2 status is critical in determining appropriate therapy for breast cancer patients but the best HER2 testing methodology has yet to be defined. In this study, we compared quantitative HER2 expression by the HERmark™ Breast Cancer Assay (HERmark) with routine HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and correlated HER2 results with overall survival (OS) of breast cancer patients in a multicenter Collaborative Biomarker Study (CBS). Methods Two hundred and thirty-two formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissues and local laboratory HER2 testing results were provided by 11 CBS sites. HERmark assay and central laboratory HER2 IHC retesting were retrospectively performed in a blinded fashion. HER2 results by all testing methods were obtained in 192 cases. Results HERmark yielded a continuum of total HER2 expression (H2T) ranging from 0.3 to 403 RF/mm2 (approximately 3 logs). The distribution of H2T levels correlated significantly (P <0.0001) with all routine HER2 testing results. The concordance of positive and negative values (equivocal cases excluded) between HERmark and routine HER2 testing was 84% for local IHC, 96% for central IHC, 85% for local FISH, and 84% for local HER2 status. OS analysis revealed a significant correlation of shorter OS with HER2 positivity by local IHC (HR = 2.6, P = 0.016), central IHC (HR = 3.2, P = 0.015), and HERmark (HR = 5.1, P <0.0001) in this cohort of patients most of whom received no HER2-targeted therapy. The OS curve of discordant low (HER2 positive but H2T low, 10% of all cases) was aligned with concordant negative (HER2 negative and H2T low, HR = 1.9, P = 0.444), but showed a significantly longer OS than concordant positive (HER2 positive and H2T high, HR = 0.31, P = 0.024). Conversely, the OS curve of discordant high (HER2 negative but H2T high, 9% of all cases) was aligned with concordant positive (HR = 0.41, P = 0.105), but showed a significantly shorter OS than concordant negative (HR = 41, P <0.0001). Conclusions Quantitative HER2 measurement by HERmark is highly sensitive, accurately quantifies HER2 protein expression and correlates well with routine HER2 testing. When HERmark and local HER2 results were discordant, HERmark more accurately predicted overall survival.
    Breast Cancer Research 03/2015; 17(1). DOI:10.1186/s13058-015-0543-x · 5.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate (I) trastuzumab-containing primary systemic therapy (PST) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2) overexpressing breast carcinomas.; (II) compare the patients who achieved and those who did not achieve pathological complete remission (pCR), and (III) analyze the accuracy of different clinical-imaging modalities in tumor response monitoring. 188 patients who received PST between 2008 and 2014 were reviewed and 43 Her2 overexpressing breast cancer patients (28 Luminal B/Her2-positive and 15 Her2-positive) were enrolled. 26 patients received mostly taxane-based PST without trastuzumab (Group 1) and 17 patients received trastuzumab-containing PST (Group 2). We compared the concordance between pCR and complete remission (CR) defined by breast-ultrasound, CR defined by standard 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography and computerized tomography (FDG-PET/CT) criteria (Method 1) and CR defined by a novel, breast cancer specific FDG-PET/CT criteria (Method 2). Sensitivity (sens), specificity (spec), and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. Ten patients (38.5%) in Group 1 and eight (47%) in Group 2 achieved pCR. pCR was significantly more frequent in Her2-positive than in Luminal B/Her2-positive tumors in both Group 1: (P=0.043) and Group 2: (P=0.029). PET/CT evaluated by the breast cancer specific criteria (Method 2) differentiated pCR from non-pCR more accurately in both groups (Group 1: sens=77.8%, spec=%, PPV=100%, NPV=71.4%; Group 2: sens=87.5%, spec=62.5%, PPV=70%, NPV=83.3%) than standard PET/CT criteria (Method 1) (Group 1: sens=22.2% spec=100% PPV=100% NPV=41.7%; in Group 2: sens=37.5%, spec=87.5%, PPV=75% NPV=58.3%) or breast ultrasound (Group 1, sens=83.3% spec=25% PPV=62.5% NPV=50%; Group 2, sens=100% spec=12.5% PPV=41.6% NPV=100%). The benefit of targeted treatment with trastuzumab-containing PST in Her2 overexpressing breast cancer was defined in terms of pCR rate. Luminal B/Her2-positive subtype needs further subdivision to identify patients who would benefit from PST. Combined evaluation of tumor response by our novel, breast cancer specific FDG-PET/CT criteria accurately differentiated pCR from non-pCR patients.
    Croatian Medical Journal 04/2015; 56(2):128-38. · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The clinical success of trastuzumab in breast cancer taught us that appropriate tumor evaluation is mandatory for the correct identification of patients eligible for targeted therapies. Although HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays are routinely used to select patients to receive trastuzumab, both assays only partially predict response to the drug. In the case of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), the link between the presence of the receptor or its amplification and response to anti-EGFR therapies could not be demonstrated. Even less is known for HER3 and HER4, mainly due to lack of robust and validated assays detecting these proteins. It is becoming evident that, besides FISH and IHC, we need better assays to quantify HER receptors and categorize the patients for individualized treatments. Here, we present the current available methodologies to measure HER family receptors and discuss the clinical implications of target quantification.
    Breast cancer research: BCR 04/2015; 17(1). DOI:10.1186/s13058-015-0561-8 · 5.88 Impact Factor