Nour Sneige1, Kenneth R Hess2, Asha S Multani3, Yun Gong1, Nuhad K Ibrahim4. 1. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2013 testing guidelines for determining the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status include new cutoff points for the HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 (CEP17) ratio and the average HER2 copy number per cell, and they recommend using a reflex test with alternative chromosome 17 probes (Ch17Ps) to resolve equivocal HER2 results. This study sought to determine the clinical utility of alternative Ch17Ps in equivocal cases and the effects of equivocal results and/or a change in the HER2 status on patients' outcomes. METHODS: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center database of HER2 dual-probe fluorescence in situ hybridization results from 2000 to 2010 was searched for cases of invasive breast cancer with HER2/CEP17 ratios < 2 and average HER2 copy numbers < 6 per cell. Cases with HER2 copy numbers of 4 to < 6 (the definition of equivocal HER2 results) were analyzed with alternative Ch17Ps for Smith-Magenis syndrome and retinoic acid receptor α genes. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated with respect to the HER2 copy number with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among the 3630 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 137 (4%) had equivocal HER2 results. With alternative Ch17Ps, 35 of 57 equivocal HER2 cases (61%) were upgraded to a positive HER2 status, and 22 cases (39%) remained unchanged. The 5-year DFS and OS adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for copy numbers of 4 to < 6 versus < 4 were 0.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-1.2) and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.2-1.0) with P values of .16 and .66, respectively. In comparison with HER2-negative cases, these CIs indicated that equivocal HER2 results were associated with either a protective effect (HR, < 0.5) or no effect (HR, 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: These findings rule out a significant deleterious effect of equivocal HER2 results. Alternative Ch17Ps may erroneously upgrade the HER2 status; therefore, they cannot be considered reliable in clinical practice. Cancer 2017;123:1115-1123.
BACKGROUND: The 2013 testing guidelines for determining the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status include new cutoff points for the HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 (CEP17) ratio and the average HER2 copy number per cell, and they recommend using a reflex test with alternative chromosome 17 probes (Ch17Ps) to resolve equivocal HER2 results. This study sought to determine the clinical utility of alternative Ch17Ps in equivocal cases and the effects of equivocal results and/or a change in the HER2 status on patients' outcomes. METHODS: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center database of HER2 dual-probe fluorescence in situ hybridization results from 2000 to 2010 was searched for cases of invasive breast cancer with HER2/CEP17 ratios < 2 and average HER2 copy numbers < 6 per cell. Cases with HER2 copy numbers of 4 to < 6 (the definition of equivocal HER2 results) were analyzed with alternative Ch17Ps for Smith-Magenis syndrome and retinoic acid receptor α genes. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated with respect to the HER2 copy number with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among the 3630 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 137 (4%) had equivocal HER2 results. With alternative Ch17Ps, 35 of 57 equivocal HER2 cases (61%) were upgraded to a positive HER2 status, and 22 cases (39%) remained unchanged. The 5-year DFS and OS adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for copy numbers of 4 to < 6 versus < 4 were 0.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-1.2) and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.2-1.0) with P values of .16 and .66, respectively. In comparison with HER2-negative cases, these CIs indicated that equivocal HER2 results were associated with either a protective effect (HR, < 0.5) or no effect (HR, 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: These findings rule out a significant deleterious effect of equivocal HER2 results. Alternative Ch17Ps may erroneously upgrade the HER2 status; therefore, they cannot be considered reliable in clinical practice. Cancer 2017;123:1115-1123.
Authors: I-Tien Yeh; Mathew A Martin; Ryan S Robetorye; Aswani R Bolla; Chris McCaskill; Rashmi K Shah; Mercedes E Gorre; Mansoor S Mohammed; Shelly R Gunn Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Erinn Downs-Kelly; Brian J Yoder; Mark Stoler; Raymond R Tubbs; Marek Skacel; Thomas Grogan; Patrick Roche; David G Hicks Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Zsuzsanna Varga; Raymond R Tubbs; Zhen Wang; Yang Sun; Aurelia Noske; Doris Kradolfer; Giovanna Bosshard; Wolfram Jochum; Holger Moch; Christian Öhlschlegel Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Katherine L Pogue-Geile; Chungyeul Kim; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Noriko Tanaka; Hanna Bandos; Patrick G Gavin; Debora Fumagalli; Lynn C Goldstein; Nour Sneige; Eike Burandt; Yusuke Taniyama; Olga L Bohn; Ahwon Lee; Seung-Il Kim; Megan L Reilly; Matthew Y Remillard; Nicole L Blackmon; Seong-Rim Kim; Zachary D Horne; Priya Rastogi; Louis Fehrenbacher; Edward H Romond; Sandra M Swain; Eleftherios P Mamounas; D Lawrence Wickerham; Charles E Geyer; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Soonmyung Paik Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lauren E McLemore; Constance T Albarracin; Stephen K Gruschkus; Roland L Bassett; Yun Wu; Sagar Dhamne; Isaiah Yim; Kevin Lin; Isabelle Bedrosian; Nour Sneige; Hui Chen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Caterina Marchiò; Patrizia Dell'Orto; Laura Annaratone; Felipe C Geyer; Tiziana Venesio; Enrico Berrino; Ludovica Verdun di Cantogno; Andrea Garofoli; Nelson Rangel; Laura Casorzo; Carmine dell'Aglio; Patrizia Gugliotta; Elena Trisolini; Alessandra Beano; Francesca Pietribiasi; Renzo Orlassino; Paola Cassoni; Achille Pich; Filippo Montemurro; Marcella Mottolese; Anne Vincent-Salomon; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Enzo Medico; Charlotte K Y Ng; Giuseppe Viale; Anna Sapino Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Michael F Press; Jose A Seoane; Christina Curtis; Emmanuel Quinaux; Roberta Guzman; Guido Sauter; Wolfgang Eiermann; John R Mackey; Nicholas Robert; Tadeusz Pienkowski; John Crown; Miguel Martin; Vicente Valero; Valerie Bee; Yanling Ma; Ivonne Villalobos; Dennis J Slamon Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Swati Gupta; Veronique Neumeister; John McGuire; Yan S Song; Balazs Acs; Kenneth Ho; Jodi Weidler; Wendy Wong; Brian Rhees; Michael Bates; David L Rimm; Veerle Bossuyt Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2019-08-29