Intratumoral heterogeneity as a source of discordance in breast cancer biomarker classification

BackgroundSpatial heterogeneity in biomarker expression may impact breast cancer classification. The aims of this study were to estimate the frequency of spatial heterogeneity in biomarker expression within tumors, to identify technical and biological factors contributing to spatial heterogeneity, and to examine the impact of discordant biomarker status within tumors on clinical record agreement.MethodsTissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed using two to four cores (1.0 mm) for each of 1085 invasive breast cancers from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, which is part of the AMBER Consortium. Immunohistochemical staining for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) was quantified using automated digital imaging analysis. The biomarker status for each core and for each case was assigned using clinical thresholds. Cases with core-to-core biomarker discordance were manually reviewed to distinguish intratumoral biomarker heterogeneity from misclassification of biomarker status by the automated algorithm. The impact of core-to-core biomarker discordance on case-level agreement between TMAs and the clinical record was evaluated.ResultsOn the basis of automated analysis, discordant biomarker status between TMA cores occurred in 9 %, 16 %, and 18 % of cases for ER, PR, and HER2, respectively. Misclassification of benign epithelium and/or ductal carcinoma in situ as invasive carcinoma by the automated algorithm was implicated in discordance among cores. However, manual review of discordant cases confirmed spatial heterogeneity as a source of discordant biomarker status between cores in 2 %, 7 %, and 8 % of cases for ER, PR, and HER2, respectively. Overall, agreement between TMA and clinical record was high for ER (94 %), PR (89 %), and HER2 (88 %), but it was reduced in cases with core-to-core discordance (agreement 70 % for ER, 61 % for PR, and 57 % for HER2).ConclusionsIntratumoral biomarker heterogeneity may impact breast cancer classification accuracy, with implications for clinical management. Both manually confirmed biomarker heterogeneity and misclassification of biomarker status by automated image analysis contribute to discordant biomarker status between TMA cores. Given that manually confirmed heterogeneity is uncommon (<10 % of cases), large studies are needed to study the impact of heterogeneous biomarker expression on breast cancer classification and outcomes.

[1]  A. Olshan,et al.  Racial differences in physical activity among breast cancer survivors: Implications for breast cancer care , 2014, Cancer.

[2]  Kornelia Polyak,et al.  Heterogeneity in breast cancer. , 2011, The Journal of clinical investigation.

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

[4]  C. Perou,et al.  Performance of Three-Biomarker Immunohistochemistry for Intrinsic Breast Cancer Subtyping in the AMBER Consortium , 2015, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[5]  C. Gomez-Fernandez,et al.  Immunohistochemistry of estrogen and progesterone receptors reconsidered: experience with 5,993 breast cancers. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[6]  Zhao-xiang Gu,et al.  Accuracy of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status between core needle and open excision biopsy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[7]  P. Klein,et al.  Concordance between central and local laboratory HER2 testing from a community-based clinical study. , 2006, Clinical breast cancer.

[8]  I. Ellis,et al.  The reliability of assessment of oestrogen receptor expression on needle core biopsy specimens of invasive carcinomas of the breast , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[9]  J. Bergh,et al.  HER-2/neu (c-erbB-2) Evaluation in Primary Breast Carcinoma by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization and Immunohistochemistry With Special Focus on Intratumor Heterogeneity and Comparison of Invasive and In Situ Components , 2004, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[10]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2000, Nature.

[11]  E. Perez,et al.  Central pathology laboratory review of HER2 and ER in early breast cancer: an ALTTO trial [BIG 2-06/NCCTG N063D (Alliance)] ring study , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[12]  G. Wilding,et al.  Delay to formalin fixation effect on breast biomarkers , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[13]  B. Strom,et al.  Breast Cancer Receptor Status: Do Results from a Centralized Pathology Laboratory Agree with SEER Registry Reports? , 2009, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[14]  M. Nerenberg,et al.  Loss of antigenicity with tissue age in breast cancer , 2016, Laboratory Investigation.

[15]  S. Nofech-Mozes,et al.  Intratumoral Heterogeneity of HER2/neu in Breast Cancer—A Rare Event , 2007, The breast journal.

[16]  A. Douglas-Jones,et al.  Comparison of core oestrogen receptor (ER) assay with excised tumour: intratumoral distribution of ER in breast carcinoma. , 2001, Journal of clinical pathology.

[17]  Charles Swanton,et al.  Deciphering intratumor heterogeneity and temporal acquisition of driver events to refine precision medicine , 2014, Genome Biology.

[18]  G. Wilding,et al.  Effect of delayed formalin fixation on estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer: a study of three different clones. , 2010, American journal of clinical pathology.

[19]  Jun Jiang,et al.  Assessment accuracy of core needle biopsy for hormone receptors in breast cancer: a meta-analysis , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[20]  A. Olshan,et al.  A collaborative study of the etiology of breast cancer subtypes in African American women: the AMBER consortium , 2013, Cancer Causes & Control.

[21]  Y. Oda,et al.  Protein overexpression and gene amplification of c-erbB-2 in breast carcinomas: a comparative study of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. , 2002, Human pathology.

[22]  Charles Swanton,et al.  Clinical management of breast cancer heterogeneity , 2015, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[23]  R. Tamimi,et al.  Comparison of estrogen receptor results from pathology reports with results from central laboratory testing. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[24]  Edith A Perez,et al.  Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  A. Leong,et al.  Biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ and concurrent infiltrating carcinoma. A comparison of eight contemporary grading systems. , 2001, American journal of clinical pathology.

[26]  Peter A Kaufman,et al.  HER2 testing by local, central, and reference laboratories in specimens from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 intergroup adjuvant trial. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. , 2010, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[29]  L. Tafra,et al.  Does breast tumor heterogeneity necessitate further immunohistochemical staining on surgical specimens? , 2013, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[30]  U. Lehmann,et al.  Marked Intratumoral Heterogeneity of c-myc and CyclinD1 But Not of c-erbB2 Amplification in Breast Cancer , 2002, Laboratory Investigation.

[31]  M. Gnant,et al.  Sequential steroid hormone receptor measurements in primary breast cancer with and without intervening primary chemotherapy. , 2003, Endocrine-related cancer.

[32]  D. Rimm,et al.  Quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor heterogeneity in breast cancer , 2007, Laboratory Investigation.

[33]  Päivi Heikkilä,et al.  Performance of automated scoring of ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6 and EGFR in breast cancer tissue microarrays in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium , 2014, The journal of pathology. Clinical research.