Yang Liu1, Li Ma2, Dequan Liu1, Zhibing Yang1, Chengang Yang3, Zaoxiu Hu3, Wenlin Chen1, Zhuangqing Yang1, Sijun Chen1, Zhuoni Zhang1. 1. Department of Breast Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University Yunnan, China. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University Beijing, China. 3. Department of Pathology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University Yunnan, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines define HER2-positive tumors as those with >6 HER2 genes per nucleus or those with HER2/CEP17 (chromosome 17) ratio>2.2. These guidelines are potentially contradictory in tumors with polysomy of chromosome 17. The current study was performed to determine the impact of polysomy 17 on the interpretation of HER2 testing of invasive breast carcinomas. METHODS: Chromosome 17 copies and HER2 gene status were identified by fluorescent in situ hybridization in 384 cases with invasive breast cancer, and the corresponding HER2 expression was obtained by immunohistochemistry stain. RESULTS: The average CEP17 copy number for the group was 2.1 (range, 1.0-12.4). Forty-eight cases (13.8%, 48/348) were identified as chromosome 17 polysomy with CEP 17 copy number≥3. Ninety-two (26.4%) cases had >6 copies of HER2 per nucleus, and 92 cases (26.4%) qualified as HER2 gene amplified using the HER2/CEP17 ratio (>2.2) guideline. Polysomy 17 showed poorly positive correlations with both HER2 gene copy number and HER2 overexpression (P<0.01, r=0.338 and 0.271, respectively). The distribution of clinicopathologic parameters of Polysomy 17 tumors was more similar to HER2 negative than HER2 positive tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Polysomy 17 is a crucial cause of equivocal HER2 testing results by FISH, depending on which criterion (ratio vs. absolute number) is used for interpretation. Polysomy 17 cannot be an independent predictive factor for HER2 gene amplification or protein overexpression.
BACKGROUND: Current American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines define HER2-positive tumors as those with >6 HER2 genes per nucleus or those with HER2/CEP17 (chromosome 17) ratio>2.2. These guidelines are potentially contradictory in tumors with polysomy of chromosome 17. The current study was performed to determine the impact of polysomy 17 on the interpretation of HER2 testing of invasive breast carcinomas. METHODS: Chromosome 17 copies and HER2 gene status were identified by fluorescent in situ hybridization in 384 cases with invasive breast cancer, and the corresponding HER2 expression was obtained by immunohistochemistry stain. RESULTS: The average CEP17 copy number for the group was 2.1 (range, 1.0-12.4). Forty-eight cases (13.8%, 48/348) were identified as chromosome 17 polysomy with CEP 17 copy number≥3. Ninety-two (26.4%) cases had >6 copies of HER2 per nucleus, and 92 cases (26.4%) qualified as HER2 gene amplified using the HER2/CEP17 ratio (>2.2) guideline. Polysomy 17 showed poorly positive correlations with both HER2 gene copy number and HER2 overexpression (P<0.01, r=0.338 and 0.271, respectively). The distribution of clinicopathologic parameters of Polysomy 17 tumors was more similar to HER2 negative than HER2 positive tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Polysomy 17 is a crucial cause of equivocal HER2 testing results by FISH, depending on which criterion (ratio vs. absolute number) is used for interpretation. Polysomy 17 cannot be an independent predictive factor for HER2 gene amplification or protein overexpression.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chromosome 17; breast cancer; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2); immunohistochemistry (IHC); polysomy
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Jared N Schwartz; Karen L Hagerty; D Craig Allred; Richard J Cote; Mitchell Dowsett; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Wedad M Hanna; Amy Langer; Lisa M McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D Pegram; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine Sturgeon; Sheila E Taube; Raymond Tubbs; Gail H Vance; Marc van de Vijver; Thomas M Wheeler; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Steven A Limentani; Adam M Brufsky; John K Erban; Mohammed Jahanzeb; Deborah Lewis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Uma Krishnamurti; Jennifer L Hammers; Folefac D Atem; Patrick D Storto; Jan F Silverman Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Rosalba Torrisi; Nicole Rotmensz; Vincenzo Bagnardi; Giuseppe Viale; Barbara Del Curto; Patrizia Dell'orto; Paolo Veronesi; Alberto Luini; Claudia D'Alessandro; Anna Cardillo; Aron Goldhirsch; Marco Colleoni Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-09-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Monica M Reinholz; Amy K Bruzek; Daniel W Visscher; Wilma L Lingle; Matthew J Schroeder; Edith A Perez; Robert B Jenkins Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Isabelle Vanden Bempt; Peter Van Loo; Maria Drijkoningen; Patrick Neven; Ann Smeets; Marie-Rose Christiaens; Robert Paridaens; Christiane De Wolf-Peeters Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wedad M Hanna; Josef Rüschoff; Michael Bilous; Renata A Coudry; Mitch Dowsett; Robert Y Osamura; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Marc van de Vijver; Giuseppe Viale Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Sally Agersborg; Christopher Mixon; Thanh Nguyen; Sramila Aithal; Sucha Sudarsanam; Forrest Blocker; Lawrence Weiss; Robert Gasparini; Shiping Jiang; Wayne Chen; Gregory Hess; Maher Albitar Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 4.872