Reliability of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry in breast core needle biopsies.

PURPOSE Core needle biopsies (CNBs) are widely used to determine human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer. Recent publications reported up to 20% false-positive results on CNBs if immunohistochemistry (IHC) is compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). To clarify, if confirmation of IHC positivity by FISH is generally required, we analyzed the reliability of IHC positivity on CNBs versus surgical specimens in a multi-institutional study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Five pathologic laboratories contributed to this study by performing IHC on 500 CNBs and the corresponding surgical specimens overall. If IHC revealed score 2+ or 3+, HER2 status was confirmed by FISH in a central laboratory. We compared evaluation according to US Food and Drug Administration-approved scoring criteria and recently published American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidelines. RESULTS CNBs scored 3+ revealed five false-positive results if scoring followed the US Food and Drug Administration criteria (five of 40; 12.5%) and two false-positives in terms of the ASCO-CAP criteria (two of 33; 6.1%). IHC was false negative in one CNB only. By contrast, IHC on surgical specimens revealed five false-negative results, but only one false-positive result (one of 35; 2.9%) if scored following US Food and Drug Administration-approved criteria. With the aid of the ASCO-CAP criteria, false-positive IHC results were obtained in only one of the five participating institutions. CONCLUSION IHC 3+ scores on CNBs proved to be reliable in four of the five participating institutions if scoring followed the ASCO-CAP criteria. Therefore, accurate determination of HER2 status in breast cancer is possible on CNB using the common strategy to screen all cases by IHC and retest only 2+ scores by FISH. Prerequisites are quality assurance and the application of the new ASCO-CAP criteria.

[1]  John R. Mackey,et al.  Phase III Randomized Trial Comparing Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide Followed by Docetaxel (AC→T) with Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide Followed by Docetaxel and Trastuzumab (AC→TH) with Docetaxel, Carboplatin and Trastuzumab (TCH) in Her2neu Positive Early Breast Cancer Patients: BCIRG 006 Study. , 2009 .

[2]  M. Dowsett,et al.  Discordance between core needle biopsy (CNB) and excisional biopsy (EB) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status in early breast cancer (EBC). , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  Raymond R Tubbs,et al.  Genetic heterogeneity in HER2 testing in breast cancer: panel summary and guidelines. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[4]  N. Sneige,et al.  Implementation of American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists HER2 Guideline Recommendations in a tertiary care facility increases HER2 immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization concordance and decreases the number of inconclusive cases. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[5]  G. Sauter,et al.  Reply to E.H. Hammond et al , 2009 .

[6]  A. Wolff,et al.  Reply to G. Sauter et al. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  A. Schneider,et al.  Diagnostic Accuracy and Prognostic Value of Core Biopsy in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Series of 542 Patients , 2009, International journal of surgical pathology.

[8]  Mitch Dowsett,et al.  Disease-free survival according to degree of HER2 amplification for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy with or without 1 year of trastuzumab: the HERA Trial. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  P. N. Rao,et al.  Comparison of fluorescent in situ hybridization HER-2/neu results on core needle biopsy and excisional biopsy in primary breast cancer , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[10]  S. Bersani,et al.  Genotypic intratumoral heterogeneity in breast carcinoma with HER2/neu amplification: evaluation according to ASCO/CAP criteria. , 2009, American journal of clinical pathology.

[11]  John M S Bartlett,et al.  Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  P. Fasching,et al.  Integrated meta-analysis on 6402 patients with early breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane +/- trastuzumab containing chemotherapy. , 2009 .

[13]  J. Baselga,et al.  Neoadjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer: primary efficacy analysis of the NOAH trial. , 2009 .

[14]  Patrick Neven,et al.  Polysomy 17 in breast cancer: clinicopathologic significance and impact on HER-2 testing. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  C. Rosenberg.  Polysomy 17 and HER-2 amplification: true, true, and unrelated. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  V. Kiviniemi,et al.  Surgical specimen can be replaced by core samples in assessment of ER, PR and HER-2 for invasive breast cancer , 2008, Acta oncologica.

[17]  Nandini Dendukuri,et al.  Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis , 2007, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[18]  H. Holzhausen,et al.  Correlation of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2), Estrogen Receptor (ER), and Progesterone Receptor (PR) Expression as Predicted by Core Biopsy with the Immunohistochemical Results of Surgical Breast Cancer Specimens , 2007, Breast Care.

[19]  H. Sasano,et al.  Reliability of prognostic factors in breast carcinoma determined by core needle biopsy. , 2007, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.

[20]  B. Ljung,et al.  HER2 testing in breast cancer: NCCN Task Force report and recommendations. , 2006, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[21]  S. Apple,et al.  Do the histologic features and results of breast cancer biomarker studies differ between core biopsy and surgical excision specimens? , 2006, Breast.

[22]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. , 2006, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[23]  G. Hortobagyi,et al.  Individualization of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer according to molecular tumor characteristics , 2005, Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

[24]  M. Dowsett,et al.  Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  Greg Yothers,et al.  Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  Jinha M. Park,et al.  Diagnostic Evaluation of HER-2 as a Molecular Target: An Assessment of Accuracy and Reproducibility of Laboratory Testing in Large, Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trials , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[27]  M. Buchanan,et al.  Reliance on hormone receptor assays of surgical specimens may compromise outcome in patients with breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  C. Vogel,et al.  Evaluation of clinical outcomes according to HER2 detection by fluorescence in situ hybridization in women with metastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab. , 2005, Clinical breast cancer.

[29]  A. Cavaliere,et al.  Biopathologic profile of breast cancer core biopsy: is it always a valid method? , 2005, Cancer letters.

[30]  L. Goldstein,et al.  HER-2 testing in breast cancer using parallel tissue-based methods. , 2004, JAMA.

[31]  M. Gnant,et al.  Prognostic markers in breast cancer: the reliability of HER2/neu status in core needle biopsy of 325 patients with primary breast cancer , 2004, Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift.

[32]  M. Dowsett,et al.  Current Perspectives on HER2 Testing: A Review of National Testing Guidelines , 2003, Modern Pathology.

[33]  M. Mayo,et al.  A comparison of prognostic tumor markers obtained on image-guided breast biopsies and final surgical specimens. , 2002, American journal of surgery.

[34]  Jinha M. Park,et al.  Evaluation of HER-2/neu gene amplification and overexpression: comparison of frequently used assay methods in a molecularly characterized cohort of breast cancer specimens. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[35]  J. R. Reeves,et al.  Evaluating HER2 amplification and overexpression in breast cancer , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[36]  C. Marth,et al.  Immunohistochemical determination of her2 expression in breast cancer from core biopsy specimens: a reliable predictor of her2 status of the whole tumor , 2001, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[37]  M. Untch,et al.  Her-2/neu analysis in archival tissue samples of human breast cancer: comparison of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[38]  A. Gown,et al.  Specificity of HercepTest in determining HER-2/neu status of breast cancers using the United States Food and Drug Administration-approved scoring system. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[39]  S J Schnitt,et al.  Comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry for the evaluation of HER-2/neu in breast cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[40]  F. Révillion,et al.  ERBB2 oncogene in human breast cancer and its clinical significance. , 1998, European journal of cancer.

[41]  S. Schnitt,et al.  Do prognostic marker studies on core needle biopsy specimens of breast carcinoma accurately reflect the marker status of the tumor? , 1998, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[42]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[43]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[44]  R. Cahill,et al.  Preoperative Profiling of Symptomatic Breast Cancer by Diagnostic Core Biopsy , 2006, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[45]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.