Selecting patients with HER2-low Breast Cancer: getting out of the tangle

The promising effect of antibody–drug conjugates on breast cancer with low expression of HER2 (HER2-low) raises many questions regarding the optimal selection of patients for this treatment. A key question is whether HER2 immunohistochemistry, an assay optimised to detect HER2 amplification, is reliable enough to assess HER2 protein levels to select patients with HER2-low breast cancer in daily pathology practices worldwide. Moreover, whether this assessment can be performed with sufficient reproducibility between pathologists in daily practices is debatable. Herein, we address the historical track record of the CAP-ASCO HER2 Guidelines, the reported limited reproducibility by pathologists of HER2 immunohistochemistry in the non-amplified cases, and the performance variation of different antibodies. Based on this summary, we propose solutions to improve the robustness to enable reliable identification of patients with HER2-low breast cancer

HER2-low and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancer:Are they connected?

Most patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are not candidates for targeted therapy, leaving chemotherapy as the primary treatment option. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated promising results in TNBC, due to its immunogenicity. In addition, a novel antibody–drug conjugate, namely, trastuzumab-deruxtecan, has shown effectiveness in TNBC patients with low-HER2 expression (HER2-low). These novel treatment options raise the question about the potential association between the density of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) and the level of HER2 expression. We aimed to evaluate the association between the level of HER2 expression (HER2-low versus HER2-0) and density of sTILs in TNBC patients, and how they impact the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). This was a retrospective multicenter study including all TNBC patients diagnosed between 2018 and 2022. Central pathology review included sTILs percentages and level of HER2 expression. Tumors were reclassified as either HER2-0 (HER2 IHC 0) or HER2-low (IHC 1 + or 2 + with negative reflex test). Various clinicopathologic characteristics, including sTILs density, and response to NAC were compared between HER2-0 and HER2-low cases. In total, 753 TNBC patients were included in this study, of which 292 patients received NAC. Interobserver agreement between the original pathology report and central review was moderate (77% had the same IHC status after reclassification in either HER2-0 or HER2-low; k = 0.45). HER2-low TNBC represented about one third (36%) of the tumors. No significant difference in sTILs density or complete pathologic response rate was found between HER2-0 and HER2-low cases (p = 0.476 and p = 0.339, respectively). The density of sTILs (≥ 10% sTILs vs. &lt; 10%) was independently associated with achieving a pCR (p = 0.011). In conclusion, no significant association was found between HER2-low status and density of sTILs nor response to NAC. Nonetheless, sTILs could be an independent biomarker for predicting NAC response in TNBC patients.</p

HER2-Low Breast Cancer:Incidence, Clinicopathologic Features, and Survival Outcomes From Real-World Data of a Large Nationwide Cohort

Patients with breast cancer (BC) with low levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression (HER2-low) could benefit from novel antibody-drug conjugates. However, there is conflicting information regarding the characteristics of HER2-low BC and its outcome. We assessed the clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes of HER2-low BC using real-world data from the Dutch National Pathology Registry. This retrospective study incorporated all patients with primary invasive BC, without neoadjuvant therapy, reported in the Dutch National Pathology Registry synoptic reporting module between 2014 and 2022. HER2 status was categorized as HER2-0 (defined as an immunohistochemistry score of 0 according to the current American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines) or HER2-low (immunohistochemistry score 1+ or 2+ without amplification). Clinicopathologic characteristics and overall survival of HER2-low BC were compared with HER2-0, adjusted for estrogen receptor (ER) status. We included 65,035 patients with BC, resulting in 69,424 tumors. The proportion of HER2-low BC was 62% in the ER+ cohort and 38% in the ER- cohort. A substantial number of patients had a different HER2 category between the needle biopsy and the corresponding surgical resection (28%) or among multiple tumors (28%). After multivariable logistic analysis, HER2-low tumors were significantly associated with histologic subtype, a higher ER, and lower progesterone receptor expression in the ER+ cohort, whereas within the ER-cohort, HER2-low tumors were associated with a lower tumor grade. However, the absolute differences were limited, and there was no significant difference in overall survival between HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors within the ER+ or ER- cohort. The classification of HER2 expression (HER2-0 vs HER2-low) varies between biopsies and corresponding resection specimens and within multiple tumors in the same patient, which could affect clinical decision making in case only HER2-low cases are eligible for novel HER2-targeting agents. The limited follow-up time and the lack of substantial clinicopathologic differences between HER2-low and HER2-0-cases could explain the lack of differences in overall survival.</p

HER2-Low Breast Cancer: Incidence, Clinicopathologic Features, and Survival Outcomes From Real-World Data of a Large Nationwide Cohort

Patients with breast cancer (BC) with low levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression (HER2-low) could benefit from novel antibody-drug conjugates. However, there is conflicting information regarding the characteristics of HER2-low BC and its outcome. We assessed the clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes of HER2-low BC using real-world data from the Dutch National Pathology Registry. This retrospective study incorporated all patients with primary invasive BC, without neoadjuvant therapy, reported in the Dutch National Pathology Registry synoptic reporting module between 2014 and 2022. HER2 status was categorized as HER2-0 (defined as an immunohistochemistry score of 0 according to the current American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines) or HER2-low (immunohistochemistry score 1+ or 2+ without amplification). Clinicopathologic characteristics and overall survival of HER2-low BC were compared with HER2-0, adjusted for estrogen receptor (ER) status. We included 65,035 patients with BC, resulting in 69,424 tumors. The proportion of HER2-low BC was 62% in the ER+ cohort and 38% in the ER- cohort. A substantial number of patients had a different HER2 category between the needle biopsy and the corresponding surgical resection (28%) or among multiple tumors (28%). After multivariable logistic analysis, HER2-low tumors were significantly associated with histologic subtype, a higher ER, and lower progesterone receptor expression in the ER+ cohort, whereas within the ER-cohort, HER2-low tumors were associated with a lower tumor grade. However, the absolute differences were limited, and there was no significant difference in overall survival between HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors within the ER+ or ER- cohort. The classification of HER2 expression (HER2-0 vs HER2-low) varies between biopsies and corresponding resection specimens and within multiple tumors in the same patient, which could affect clinical decision making in case only HER2-low cases are eligible for novel HER2-targeting agents. The limited follow-up time and the lack of substantial clinicopathologic differences between HER2-low and HER2-0-cases could explain the lack of differences in overall survival.</p

Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing — Part 2: Analysis, reporting, and quality assessment

International audienceAbstract The diagnostic work-up for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires biomarker testing to guide therapy choices. This article is the second of a two-part series. In Part 1, we summarised evidence-based recommendations for obtaining and processing small specimen samples (i.e. pre-analytical steps) from patients with advanced NSCLC. Here, in Part 2, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to analytical steps of biomarker testing (and associated reporting and quality assessment) of small specimen samples in NSCLC. As the number of biomarkers for actionable (genetic) targets and approved targeted therapies continues to increase, simultaneous testing of multiple actionable oncogenic drivers using next-generation sequencing (NGS) becomes imperative, as set forth in European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines. This is particularly relevant in advanced NSCLC, where tissue specimens are typically limited and NGS may help avoid tissue exhaustion compared with sequential biomarker testing. Despite guideline recommendations, significant discrepancies in access to NGS persist across Europe, primarily due to reimbursement constraints. The use of increasingly complex testing methods also has implications for the reporting of results. Molecular testing reports should include clinical interpretation with additional commentary on sample adequacy as appropriate. Molecular tumour boards are recommended to facilitate the interpretation of complex genetic information arising from NGS, and to collaboratively determine the optimal treatment for patients with NSCLC. Finally, whichever testing modality is employed, it is essential that adequate internal and external validation and quality control measures are implemented

Elastin in pulmonary pathology: relevance in tumours with a lepidic or papillary appearance. A comprehensive understanding from a morphological viewpoint

Elastin and collagen are the main components of the lung connective tissue network, and together provide the lung with elasticity and tensile strength. In pulmonary pathology, elastin staining is used to variable extents in different countries. These uses include evaluation of the pleura in staging, and the distinction of invasion from collapse of alveoli after surgery (iatrogenic collapse). In the latter, elastin staining is used to highlight distorted but pre-existing alveolar architecture from true invasion. In addition to variable levels of use and experience, the interpretation of elastin staining in some adenocarcinomas leads to interpretative differences between collapsed lepidic patterns and true papillary patterns. This review aims to summarise the existing data on the use of elastin staining in pulmonary pathology, on the basis of literature data and morphological characteristics. The effect of iatrogenic collapse and the interpretation of elastin staining in pulmonary adenocarcinomas is discussed in detail, especially for the distinction between lepidic patterns and papillary carcinoma

Interobserver Variation in the Assessment of Immunohistochemistry Expression Levels in HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Can We Improve the Identification of Low Levels of HER2 Expression by Adjusting the Criteria? An International Interobserver Study

The classification of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression is optimized to detect HER2-amplified breast cancer (BC). However, novel HER2-targeting agents are also effective for BCs with low levels of HER2. This raises the question whether the current guidelines for HER2 testing are sufficiently reproducible to identify HER2-low BC. The aim of this multicenter international study was to assess the interobserver agreement of specific HER2 immunohistochemistry scores in cases with negative HER2 results (0, 1+, or 2+/in situ hybridization negative) according to the current American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines. Furthermore, we evaluated whether the agreement improved by redefining immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring criteria or by adding fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). We conducted a 2-round study of 105 nonamplified BCs. During the first assessment, 16 pathologists used the latest version of the ASCO/CAP guidelines. After a consensus meeting, the same pathologists scored the same digital slides using modified IHC scoring criteria based on the 2007 ASCO/CAP guidelines, and an extra "ultralow" category was added. Overall, the interobserver agreement was limited (4.7% of cases with 100% agreement) in the first round, but this was improved by clustering IHC categories. In the second round, the highest reproducibility was observed when comparing IHC 0 with the ultralow/1+/2+ grouped cluster (74.3% of cases with 100% agreement). The FISH results were not statistically different between HER2-0 and HER2-low cases, regardless of the IHC criteria used. In conclusion, our study suggests that the modified 2007 ASCO/CAP criteria were more reproducible in distinguishing HER2-0 from HER2-low cases than the 2018 ASCO/CAP criteria. However, the reproducibility was still moderate, which was not improved by adding FISH. This could lead to a suboptimal selection of patients eligible for novel HER2-targeting agents. If the threshold between HER2 IHC 0 and 1+ is to be clinically actionable, there is a need for clearer, more reproducible IHC definitions, training, and/or development of more accurate methods to detect this subtle difference in protein expression levels