John M. S. Bartlett

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.

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. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.

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

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.

Expression of the HER1-4 family of receptor tyrosine kinases in breast cancer.

EGFr/HER1 and c‐erbB‐2/HER2 expression are associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer. The type I receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) family to which they belong has four members (HER1–4). In this study, expression of HER1–4 and oestrogen receptor (ER) expression were determined by immunohistochemistry in 220 breast carcinomas. Elevated expression of HER1 was observed in 16.4%, HER2 in 22.8%, HER3 in 17.5%, and HER4 in 11.9% of these tumours. Patients whose tumours overexpressed HER1, 2 or 3 had reduced survival (p = <0.001), whereas those whose tumours overexpressed HER4 had increased survival (p = 0.013); 38.6% of cases overexpressed one or more of HER1, 2 or 3. HER4 was rarely overexpressed with other HERs (1.4% of cases). Coxs multiple regression analysis demonstrated that overexpression of HER1/2/3, HER4, and standard prognostic indicators independently affected survival. HER1–3 expression was related to ER negativity (p < 0.0001, χ2). Patients with ER‐positive, HER1–3‐positive tumours had a significantly poorer survival (p < 0.001) than those with ER‐positive/HER‐negative or HER4‐positive tumours. Expression of HER RTKs displays complex interactions between different family members. There is a strong interaction, in terms of survival, between HER expression and ER expression. The development of HER‐targeted agents (eg Herceptin, Iressa), and agents targeted at the downstream signalling pathways, therefore provides new possibilities in the treatment of breast cancer. Copyright

Androgen receptor gene amplification and protein expression in hormone refractory prostate cancer

This study examined androgen receptor (AR) gene amplification and protein expression in 102 matched paired hormone sensitive and resistant tumours from 51 patients. AR gene amplification and X chromosome copy number were assessed by fluorescent in situ hybridisation, and protein expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry. All tumours were stained for PSA protein expression. Significantly more tumours exhibited AR amplification following the development of hormone resistance (20%, 10 out of 49) compared to matched hormone-sensitive tumours from the same patient (2%, one out of 48) (P=0.0085). The level of AR expression was significantly higher in hormone-resistant tumours compared to matched hormone-sensitive tumours from the same patient (130, interquartile range, 55–167 vs 94.5 interquartile range, 55–120, P=0.019). AR expression levels in hormone-resistant tumours with and without AR amplification were not significantly different. However, an increase in AR expression was seen with the development of AR amplification in paired tumours. The rate of AR gene amplification and/or an increase in AR protein expression during androgen resistant is too low to wholly explain the development of androgen resistance. Alternative mechanisms for modulating the function of the AR, or other signalling pathways, must be considered as key factors in the development of hormone-resistant prostate.

An International Ki67 Reproducibility Study

BACKGROUND In breast cancer, immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation using the marker Ki67 has potential use in both research and clinical management. However, lack of consistency across laboratories has limited Ki67s value. A working group was assembled to devise a strategy to harmonize Ki67 analysis and increase scoring concordance. Toward that goal, we conducted a Ki67 reproducibility study. METHODS Eight laboratories received 100 breast cancer cases arranged into 1-mm core tissue microarrays-one set stained by the participating laboratory and one set stained by the central laboratory, both using antibody MIB-1. Each laboratory scored Ki67 as percentage of positively stained invasive tumor cells using its own method. Six laboratories repeated scoring of 50 locally stained cases on 3 different days. Sources of variation were analyzed using random effects models with log2-transformed measurements. Reproducibility was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the approximate two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the true intraclass correlation coefficients in these experiments were provided. RESULTS Intralaboratory reproducibility was high (ICC = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.93 to 0.97). Interlaboratory reproducibility was only moderate (central staining: ICC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.78; local staining: ICC = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.68). Geometric mean of Ki67 values for each laboratory across the 100 cases ranged 7.1% to 23.9% with central staining and 6.1% to 30.1% with local staining. Factors contributing to interlaboratory discordance included tumor region selection, counting method, and subjective assessment of staining positivity. Formal counting methods gave more consistent results than visual estimation. CONCLUSIONS Substantial variability in Ki67 scoring was observed among some of the worlds most experienced laboratories. Ki67 values and cutoffs for clinical decision-making cannot be transferred between laboratories without standardizing scoring methodology because analytical validity is limited.

A short history of the polymerase chain reaction.

A Short History of the Polymerase Chain Reaction. In the 1950s, the discovery of PCR is the subject of claim and counterclaim that has yet to be.Methods Mol Biol. A short history of the polymerase chain reaction. Author information: 1Division of Cancer and.A Short History of the Polymerase Chain Reaction. Full Text, Download PDF 103K. And although this does risk overstating the impact of PCR outside the scientific community, the comparison.

AKT activation predicts outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen

Oestrogen receptor (ERα) expression is a strong predictor of response to endocrine therapy. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR signal transduction pathway has been implicated in endocrine resistance in vitro. The present study was carried out to test the hypothesis that AKT activation mediates tamoxifen resistance in clinical breast cancer. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) using AKT1‐3, pan‐AKT, pAKT (Thr‐308), pAKT (Ser‐473), pER (Ser‐167), and pHER2 antibodies was performed on 402 ERα‐positive breast carcinomas from patients treated with tamoxifen. High pAKT (Ser‐473) activity (p = 0.0406) and low AKT2 expression (p = 0.0115) alone, or in combination [high pAKT (Ser‐473)/low AKT2; ‘high‐risk’ patient group] (p = 0.0014), predicted decreased overall survival in tamoxifen‐treated patients with ERα‐positive breast cancers. There was no significant association between tumour levels of AKT expression or activity and disease‐free survival (DFS); however, the ‘high‐risk’ patient group was significantly more likely to relapse (p = 0.0491). During tamoxifen treatment, neither AKT2 nor pAKT predicted DFS. Finally, activation of AKT, via phosphorylation, was linked to activation of both HER2 and ERα in this patient cohort. The data presented here show that the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway is associated with relapse and death in ERα‐positive breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen, supporting in vitro evidence that AKT mediates tamoxifen resistance. Patients with a ‘high‐risk’ expression profile were at increased risk of death (hazard ratio 3.22, p = 0.002) relative to ‘low‐risk’ patients, highlighting the potential that tumour profiling, with multiple IHC markers predictive of therapeutic response, may improve patient selection for endocrine therapies, eg tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor‐based treatments. Copyright

Evaluating HER2 amplification and overexpression in breast cancer

The development of Herceptin (Trazumatab) makes testing for HER2 status important for choosing optimal therapy in breast cancer. This study addresses the precision, accuracy, and reproducibility of HER2 assays. HER2 was assessed retrospectively by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with Dako ‘Herceptest’, by IHC with the monoclonal antibody CB11, and by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH, PathVysion), in a series of 216 formalin‐fixed breast carcinomas including 191 for which quantitative HER2 data from radioimmunohistochemistry (Q‐IHC) were available. All tests were scored independently by two observers. Positivity rates varied between Herceptest (12.6%), FISH (19.4%), and CB11 IHC (28.5%). Kappa values showed that IHC‐based tests were more susceptible to inter‐observer variation (κ=0.67 and 0.74 for Herceptest and CB11, respectively) than FISH (κ=0.973). Overall test accuracy (see the Materials and methods section) for CB11 IHC (83.8%) was lower than Herceptest (87.4%) or FISH (93.2%). FISH predicted p185 HER2 overexpression (determined by Q‐IHC) better (concordance index C.Ind. 0.90) than CB11 IHC (C.Ind.=0.85) or Herceptest (C.Ind.=0.81). Of 42 cases with gene amplification by FISH, 67% were positive in the Herceptest (2+ or 3+) vs. 83% with CB11. Of 174 cases negative by FISH, 96% were negative in the Herceptest and 68% with CB11. In conclusion, FISH is the most accurate, reproducible, and precise predictor of HER2 overexpression in routine diagnostic laboratories. Copyright

Correlation between immunohistochemistry (HercepTest) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for HER-2 in 426 breast carcinomas from 37 centres

Accurate diagnostic assessment of HER‐2 is essential for the appropriate application of the humanized anti‐HER‐2 monoclonal antibody trastuzumab (Herceptin) to the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. The diagnostic test needs to be applicable to archival, fixed tissue removed at excision, in many cases several years earlier. We compared the assessment of HER‐2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC; HercepTest) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in 426 breast carcinomas from patients being considered for trastuzumab therapy. The tumours were tested in three reference centres having been sent in from 37 hospitals. Only 2/270 (0.7%) IHC 0/1+ tumours were FISH positive. Six of 102 (5.9%) IHC 3+ tumours were FISH negative. Five of the six had between 1.75 and 2.0 HER‐2 gene copies per chromosome 17 and the sixth had multiple copies of chromosome 17. Thirteen per cent of tumours were IHC 2+ and overall 48% of these were FISH positive but this proportion varied markedly between the centres. Sixty IHC‐stained slides selected to be enriched with 2+ cases were circulated between the three laboratories and scored. There were 20 cases in which there was some discordance in scoring. Consideration of the FISH score in these cases led to concordance in the designation of positivity/negativity in 19 of these 20 cases. These data support an algorithm in which FISH testing is restricted to IHC 2+ tumours in reference centres. The results may not extrapolate to laboratories with less experience or using different methodologies. Copyright

Observer variation in immunohistochemical analysis of protein expression, time for a change?

Aim : Immunohistochemical analysis of protein expression is central to most clinical translational studies and defines patient treatment or selection criteria for novel drugs. Interobserver variation is rarely analysed despite recognition that this is a key area of potential inaccuracy. Therefore our aim was to examine observer variation and suggest the revision of current standards.