Daniel E Carvajal-Hausdorf1, Kurt A Schalper1, Lajos Pusztai1, Amanda Psyrri1, Konstantine T Kalogeras1, Vasiliki Kotoula1, George Fountzilas1, David L Rimm2. 1. : Department of Pathology (DECH, KAS, DLR) and Medical Oncology (LP), Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece (AP); Translational Research Section, Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group, Data Office, Athens, Greece (KTK); Department of Medical Oncology, "Papageorgiou" Hospital (KTK, GF), Department of Pathology (VK), and Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Hellenic Foundation for Cancer Research (VK, GF), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Medicine, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2. : Department of Pathology (DECH, KAS, DLR) and Medical Oncology (LP), Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece (AP); Translational Research Section, Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group, Data Office, Athens, Greece (KTK); Department of Medical Oncology, "Papageorgiou" Hospital (KTK, GF), Department of Pathology (VK), and Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Hellenic Foundation for Cancer Research (VK, GF), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Medicine, Thessaloniki, Greece. david.rimm@yale.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that antibodies targeting the intracellular (ICD) or extracellular domains (ECD) of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) are equivalent when traditional methods are used. We describe a new method to quantify ICD and ECD expression separately and assess the prognostic value of domain-specific HER2 results in patients who received adjuvant trastuzumab therapy. METHODS: We measured HER2 protein expression with quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF) in tissue microarrays (TMA) using two different antibodies targeting the ICD (CB11 and A0485) and ECD (SP3 and D8F12). We assessed the prognostic value of ICD and ECD expression in 180 patients from a clinical trial of adjuvant chemotherapy followed by trastuzumab (HeCOG 10/05). We performed an exploratory univariate domain-specific, disease-free survival (DFS) analysis and compared DFS functions with Kaplan-Meier estimates. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: HER2 ICD expression by QIF showed slightly higher sensitivity to predict ERBB2 (HER2) gene amplification than ECD expression, which was more specific and had higher positive predictive value. In the HeCOG 10/05 trial specimens, 15% of cases showed discordant results for ICD and ECD expression. High ECD was statistically associated with longer DFS (log-rank P = .049, HR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.144 to 0.997), while ICD status was not. Among patients with low ECD, there was no difference in DFS by ICD status. However, when ICD was high, high ECD was statistically associated with longer DFS (log-rank P = .027, HR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.037 to 0.82) compared with low ECD. CONCLUSION: Quantitative measurements of HER2 ICD and ECD expression in breast cancer suggest a subclassification of HER2-positive tumors. Trastuzumab-treated patients with high ECD showed better DFS than patients with low ECD. This suggests differential benefit from trastuzumab therapy based on HER2 ECD expression.
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that antibodies targeting the intracellular (ICD) or extracellular domains (ECD) of humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) are equivalent when traditional methods are used. We describe a new method to quantify ICD and ECD expression separately and assess the prognostic value of domain-specific HER2 results in patients who received adjuvant trastuzumab therapy. METHODS: We measured HER2 protein expression with quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF) in tissue microarrays (TMA) using two different antibodies targeting the ICD (CB11 and A0485) and ECD (SP3 and D8F12). We assessed the prognostic value of ICD and ECD expression in 180 patients from a clinical trial of adjuvant chemotherapy followed by trastuzumab (HeCOG 10/05). We performed an exploratory univariate domain-specific, disease-free survival (DFS) analysis and compared DFS functions with Kaplan-Meier estimates. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS:HER2ICD expression by QIF showed slightly higher sensitivity to predict ERBB2 (HER2) gene amplification than ECD expression, which was more specific and had higher positive predictive value. In the HeCOG 10/05 trial specimens, 15% of cases showed discordant results for ICD and ECD expression. High ECD was statistically associated with longer DFS (log-rank P = .049, HR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.144 to 0.997), while ICD status was not. Among patients with low ECD, there was no difference in DFS by ICD status. However, when ICD was high, high ECD was statistically associated with longer DFS (log-rank P = .027, HR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.037 to 0.82) compared with low ECD. CONCLUSION: Quantitative measurements of HER2ICD and ECD expression in breast cancer suggest a subclassification of HER2-positive tumors. Trastuzumab-treated patients with high ECD showed better DFS than patients with low ECD. This suggests differential benefit from trastuzumab therapy based on HER2 ECD expression.
Authors: Anthony Rhodes; Julia Sarson; Emma E Assam; Sarah J R Dean; Edward C Cribb; Andrew Parker Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.493
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: C B Nunes; R M Rocha; J S Reis-Filho; M B Lambros; G F S Rocha; F S F Sanches; F N Oliveira; H Gobbi Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Wei Wang; Ann Chan; Yu Qin; Jacky M K Kwong; Joseph Caprioli; Ralph Levinson; Ling Chen; Lynn K Gordon Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: John W Rutland; Corey M Gill; Joshua Loewenstern; Hanane Arib; Margaret Pain; Melissa Umphlett; Yayoi Kinoshita; Russell B McBride; Joshua Bederson; Michael Donovan; Robert Sebra; Raj K Shrivastava; Mary Fowkes Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Molly Gale; Zongzhi Z Liu; Yao Li; Jian Cao; Marissa A Holmbeck; Meiling Zhang; Sabine M Lang; Lizhen Wu; Mariana Do Carmo; Swati Gupta; Keisuke Aoshima; Michael P DiGiovanna; David F Stern; David L Rimm; Gerald S Shadel; Xiang Chen; Qin Yan Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Daniel E Carvajal-Hausdorf; Jonathan Patsenker; Kelly P Stanton; Franz Villarroel-Espindola; Amanda Esch; Ruth R Montgomery; Amanda Psyrri; Konstantine T Kalogeras; Vassiliki Kotoula; George Foutzilas; Kurt A Schalper; Yuval Kluger; David L Rimm Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sandra Rost; Jennifer Giltnane; Jennifer M Bordeaux; Chuck Hitzman; Hartmut Koeppen; Scot D Liu Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: W Shi; T Jiang; P Nuciforo; C Hatzis; E Holmes; N Harbeck; C Sotiriou; L Peña; S Loi; D D Rosa; S Chia; A Wardley; T Ueno; J Rossari; H Eidtmann; A Armour; M Piccart-Gebhart; D L Rimm; J Baselga; L Pusztai Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Joshua D Ginzel; Chaitanya R Acharya; Veronica Lubkov; Robert D Cardiff; Alexander D Borowsky; H Kim Lyerly; Joshua C Snyder; Hidetoshi Mori; Peter G Boone; Lauren K Rochelle; Wendy L Roberts; Jeffrey I Everitt; Zachary C Hartman; Erika J Crosby; Lawrence S Barak; Marc G Caron; Jane Q Chen; Neil E Hubbard Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 5.852