| Literature DB >> 29633013 |
Takeru Wakatsuki1, Noriko Yamamoto2, Takeshi Sano3, Keisho Chin4, Hiroshi Kawachi2, Daisuke Takahari4, Mariko Ogura4, Takashi Ichimura4, Izuma Nakayama4, Hiroki Osumi4, Tomohiro Matsushima4, Mitsukuni Suenaga4, Eiji Shinozaki4, Naoki Hiki3, Yuichi Ishikawa2, Kensei Yamaguchi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the clinical significance of intratumoral HER2 heterogeneity. Its prognostic and predictive impacts on trastuzumab efficacy were demonstrated in breast cancer. However, its clinical significance in gastric cancer is still unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Chemotherapy; Gastric cancer; Intratumoral HER2 heterogeneity; Predictive marker; Trastuzumab
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29633013 PMCID: PMC6209002 DOI: 10.1007/s00535-018-1464-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Gastroenterol ISSN: 0944-1174 Impact factor: 7.527
Fig. 1Representative images of homogeneously HER2 positive (c) and heterogeneously HER2 positive (d) in gastric cancer. Hematoxylin–eosin stain shows differentiated adenocarcinoma in a and B (× 20). HER2 IHC shows that almost all cancer cells overexpress HER2 protein in c (× 20). HER2 IHC shows heterogeneously HER2 overexpression: clearly demarcated HER2-positive area is recognized in left side while negative in right side in d (× 20)
Comparison of patients’ characteristics between Homo-HER2 and Hetero-HER2-positive groups in this study
| Characteristics | Hetero-HER2 | Homo-HER2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 68.5 | 68.0 | 1.000 |
| ≥ 68 | 8 (57.1) | 7 (50.0) | |
| < 68 | 6 (42.9) | 7 (50.0) | |
| Gender | 0.385 | ||
| Male | 12 (85.7) | 9 (64.3) | |
| Female | 2 (14.3) | 5 (35.7) | |
| ECOG PS | 1.000 | ||
| 0 | 8 (57.1) | 8 (57.1) | |
| 1–2 | 6 (42.9) | 6 (42.9) | |
| Primary tumor site | 1.000 | ||
| GEJ | 4 (28.6) | 4 (28.6) | |
| Distal stomach | 10 (71.4) | 10 (71.4) | |
| Differentiation | 0.326 | ||
| Differentiated type | 13 (92.9) | 10 (71.4) | |
| Undifferentiated type | 1 (7.1) | 4 (28.6) | |
| Visceral metastasis | 1.000 | ||
| Yes | 8 (57.1) | 7 (50.0) | |
| No | 6 (42.9) | 7 (50.0) | |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | 1.000 | ||
| Yes | 8 (57.1) | 9 (64.3) | |
| No | 6 (42.9) | 5 (35.7) | |
| Platinum-based | 0.222 | ||
| Yes | 11 (78.6) | 14 (100) | |
| No | 3 (21.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| HER2 status | 0.481 | ||
| IHC 3+ | 12 (85.7) | 14 (100) | |
| IHC 2+/FISH positive | 2 (14.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| CEA | 0.449 | ||
| ≥ 5.0 ng/ml | 9 (64.3) | 6 (42.9) | |
| < 5.0 ng/ml | 5 (35.7) | 8 (57.1) | |
| CA 19-9 | 1.000 | ||
| ≥ 37.0 U/ml | 7 (50.0) | 6 (42.9) | |
| < 37.0 U/ml | 7 (50.0) | 8 (57.1) |
Hetero-HER2 heterogeneously HER2 positive, Homo-HER2 homogeneously HER2 positive, GEJ gastroesophageal junction, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, FISH fluorescence in situ hybridisation, IHC immunohistochemistry, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19-9
Fig. 2Progression-free survival and overall survival. Significant longer progression-free survival was seen in the Homo-HER2-positive group compared with the Hetero-HER2-positive group (a). Significant longer overall survival was seen in the Homo-HER2-positive group compared with the Hetero-HER2-positive group (b)
Survival by univariate analysis
| Characteristics ( | mPFS (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | mOS (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median age (years) | 0.373 | 0.124 | ||||
| ≥ 68 (15) | 9.0 (3.3–14.7) | 1 (Reference) | 18.0 (9.2–26.8) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| < 68 (13) | 17.0 (9.2–24.8) | 0.71 (0.32–1.56) | NR | 0.44 (0.15–1.30) | ||
| Gender | 0.143 | 0.323 | ||||
| Male (21) | 10.0 (5.5–14.5) | 1 (Reference) | 22.0 (7.5–36.5) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Female (7) | 19.0 (0.0–39.5) | 0.49 (0.18–1.33) | NR | 0.48 (0.11–2.14) | ||
| ECOG PS | 0.865 | 0.936 | ||||
| 0 (16) | 11.0 (5.1–16.9) | 1 (Reference) | 24.0 (4.7–43.3) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| 1–2 (12) | 10.0 (1.5–18.5) | 1.07 (0.48–2.39) | 22.0 (3.6–40.4) | 1.04 (0.37–2.94) | ||
| Tumor site | 0.750 | 0.655 | ||||
| GEJ (8) | 13.0 (6.1–19.9) | 1 (Reference) | 33.0 (4.1–61.9) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Stomach (20) | 9.0 (0.2–17.8) | 1.15 (0.48–2.73) | 22.0 (9.6–34.4) | 1.25 (0.41–4.08) | ||
| Differentiation | 0.737 | 0.550 | ||||
| Differentiated type (23) | 11.0 (7.9–14.1) | 1 (Reference) | 24.0 (4.3–43.7) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Undifferentiated type (5) | 9.0 (2.6–15.4) | 1.20 (0.40–3.58) | 15.0 (10.7–19.3) | 1.48 (0.40–5.48) | ||
| Visceral metastasis | 0.116 | 0.271 | ||||
| Yes (15) | 8.0 (3.3–12.7) | 1 (Reference) | 15.0 (11.5–18.5) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| No (13) | 13.0 (3.6–22.4) | 0.54 (0.24–1.21) | 33.0 (NA) | 0.56 (0.20–1.60) | ||
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | 0.856 | 0.702 | ||||
| Yes (17) | 11.0 (5.6–16.4) | 1 (Reference) | 33.0 (0.6–65.4) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| No (11) | 10.0 (0.0–24.0) | 0.93 (0.42–2.08) | 22.0 (11.2–32.8) | 1.22 (0.44–3.37) | ||
| Platinum-based | ||||||
| Yes (25) | 12.0 (8.3–15.7) | 1 (Reference) | 0.012 | 24.0 (5.1–42.9) | 1 (Reference) | 0.025 |
| No (3) | 4.0 (NA) | 4.69 (1.18–18.65) | 11.0 (7.8–14.2) | 5.64 (1.02–31.38) | ||
| HER2 status | ||||||
| IHC 3+ (26) | 11.0 (6.0–16.0) | 1 (Reference) | 0.283 | 22.0 (9.4–34.6) | 1 (Reference) | 0.273 |
| IHC 2+/FISH positive (2) | 5.0 (NA) | 2.17 (0.49–9.63) | NR | 0.04 (0.0–251.4) | ||
| HER2 heterogeneity | ||||||
| Yes (14) | 6.0 (2.3–9.7) | 1 (Reference) | <0.001 | 14.0 (11.9–16.1) | 1 (Reference) | 0.003 |
| No (14) | 20.0 (17.8–22.2) | 0.11 (0.03–0.41) | NR | 0.18 (0.06–0.61) | ||
| CEA | ||||||
| ≥ 5.0 ng/ml (15) | 6.0 (0.0–12.3) | 1 (Reference) | 0.659 | 22.0 (8.6–35.4) | 1 (Reference) | 0.804 |
| < 5.0 ng/ml (13) | 12.0 (5.0–19.1) | 0.84 (0.38–1.85) | 24.0 (1.2–46.9) | 0.88 (0.32–2.43) | ||
| CA 19-9 | ||||||
| ≥ 37.0 U/ml (13) | 8.0 (2.4––13.6) | 1 (Reference) | 0.627 | 18.0 (9.9–26.1) | 1 (Reference) | 0.641 |
| < 37.0 U/ml (15) | 11.0 (2.2–19.8) | 0.82 (0.37–1.81) | 24.0 (NA) | 0.64 (0.23–1.77) |
GEJ gastroesophageal junction cancer, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, HR hazard ratio, 95% CI 95% confidential interval, mPFS median progression-free survival, mOS median overall survival, NA not applicable, NR not reached, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19-9
Survival outcomes by multivariate analysis
| Covariates | PFS | OS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR 95% (CI) | HR 95% (CI) | |||
| Platinum-based | ||||
| Yes (25) | 1 (Reference) | 0.232 | 1 (Reference) | 0.207 |
| No (3) | 2.34 (0.58–9.37) | 3.06 (0.54–17.39) | ||
| HER2 heterogeneity | ||||
| Yes (14) | 1 (Reference) | 0.002 | 1 (Reference) | 0.013 |
| No (14) | 0.12 (0.03–0.46) | 0.21 (0.06–0.72) | ||
HR hazard ratio, 95% CI 95% confidential interval, PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival
Best overall response
| Hetero-HER2 (%) | Homo-HER2 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CR | 1 (8.3) | 2 (25.0) | |
| PR | 5 (41.7) | 5 (62.5) | |
| SD | 6 (50.0) | 0 (0) | |
| PD | 0 (0) | 1 (12.5) | |
| ORR | 6/12 (50.0) | 7/8 (87.5) | 0.282 |
CR complete response, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progression disease, ORR objective response rate, Hetero-HER2 heterogeneously HER2 positive, Homo-HER2 homogeneously HER2 positive
Fig. 3Best change from baseline in size of target lesion. Water-fall plot shows that patients in the Homo-HER2-positive group obtain deeper tumor shrinkage compared with the Hetero-HER2-positive group (a). Scatter plot shows statistically significant difference in tumor shrinkage between two groups (p = 0.046) (b)