| Literature DB >> 29928485 |
Aafke Creemers1,2, Eva A Ebbing1,2, Gerrit K J Hooijer3, Lisanne Stap2, Rajni A Jibodh-Mulder1, Susanne S Gisbertz4, Mark I van Berge Henegouwen4, Maurits L van Montfoort3, Maarten C C M Hulshof5, Kausilia K Krishnadath6, Martijn G H van Oijen2, Maarten F Bijlsma1, Sybren L Meijer3, Hanneke W M van Laarhoven1,2.
Abstract
Trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody against HER2, has become standard of care for metastatic HER2-overexpressing esophagogastric adenocarcinoma and is currently investigated as (neo)adjuvant treatment option in HER2-positive esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. The HER2 status is commonly determined on archived material of the primary tumor. However, this status may change over the course of treatment or disease progression. The aim of this study was to assess the dynamics of HER2 status in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with resectable and recurrent disease, and to determine the associations of these changes with clinical outcome. Discordance, defined as any change in HER2 status between matched biopsy and post-neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy resection specimen (N = 170), or between matched resection specimen and recurrence of patients not eligible for curative treatment (N = 61), was determined using the standardized HER2 status scoring system. Clinically relevant positive discordance was defined as a change to HER2 positive status, as this would imply eligibility for HER2-targeted therapy. A difference in HER2 status between biopsy and resection specimen and resection specimen and metachronous recurrence was observed in 2.1% (n = 3) and 3.3% (n = 2) of the paired cases, respectively. Clinically relevant discordance was detected in 1.4% (n = 2) of the resectable patients and 1.6% (n = 1) of the patients with recurrent disease. Patients with HER2-positive status tumors before start of neoadjuvant treatment showed better overall survival, but not statistically significant. No association between HER2 status discordance and survival was found. Clinically relevant HER2 status discordance was observed and in order to prevent under-treatment of patients, the assessment of HER2 status in the metastatic setting should preferably be performed on the most recently developed lesions if the previous HER2 assessment on archival material of the primary tumor was negative.Entities:
Keywords: HER2; dynamics; esophageal adenocarcinoma; neoadjuvant therapy
Year: 2018 PMID: 29928485 PMCID: PMC6003553 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25507
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flowchart of included patients in the resectable (i) and recurrent disease (ii) cohort
Baseline characteristics of included patients in the resectable (i) and the recurrent disease cohort (ii)
| Curative (i) | Recurrence (ii) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| %( | %( | |||||
| HER2 negative | HER2 positive | HER2 negative | HER2 positive | |||
| 161 (94.7%) | 9 (5.3%) | 56 (91.8%) | 5 (8.2%) | |||
| 61.4 | 64.7 | 63.6 | 69.9 | |||
| 0.223 | 0.804 | |||||
| Male | 138 (85.7%) | 9 (100%) | 42 (75.0%) | 4 (80.0%) | ||
| Female | 23 (14.3%) | 0 (0%) | 14 (25.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | ||
| 0.809 | 0.399 | |||||
| Proximal | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Mid | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (5.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Distal | 39 (24.2%) | 3 (33.3%) | 34 (60.7%) | 3 (60.0%) | ||
| GEJ | 121 (75.2%) | 6 (66.7%) | 19 (34.0%) | 2 (40.0%) | ||
| 0.148 | 0.844 | |||||
| 1 | 2 (1.2%) | 1 (11.1%) | 3 (5.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 2 | 25 (15.5%) | 2 (22.2%) | 4 (7.1%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 3 | 131 (81.4%) | 6 (66.7%) | 48 (85.7%) | 5 (100%) | ||
| 4 | 3 (1.9%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 0.932 | 0.213 | |||||
| 0 | 45 (28.0%) | 2 (22.2%) | 11 (19.6%) | 3 (60.0%) | ||
| 1 | 100 (62.1%) | 6 (66.7%) | 36 (64.3%) | 2 (40.0%) | ||
| 2 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 3 | 16 (9.9%) | 1 (11.1%) | 2 (3.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| NA | 0.419 | |||||
| M0 | 161 (100%) | 9 (100%) | 51 (91.1%) | 4 (80.0%) | ||
| M1a | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Mx | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (5.4%) | 1 (20.0%) | ||
| 0.020 | NA | |||||
| 1 | 22 (13.7%) | 1 (11.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 2 | 27 (16.8%) | 1 (11.1%) | 1 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 3 | 69 (42.9%) | 2 (22.2%) | 9 (16.1%) | 1 (20.0%) | ||
| 4 | 35 (21.7%) | 2 (22.2%) | 6 (10.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 5 | 8 (5.0%) | 3 (33.3%) | 1 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Missing | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.8%) | 4 (80.0%) | ||
| NA | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 38 (67.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 0.503 | NA | |||||
| Yes | 89 (55.3%) | 3 (33.3%) | 56 (100%) | 5 (100%) | ||
| No | 72 (44.7%) | 6 (66.7%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| NA | 0.67 | |||||
| Locoregional | NA | NA | 13 (23.2%) | 2 (40.0%) | ||
| Distant | NA | NA | 23 (41.1%) | 2 (40.0%) | ||
| Locoregional and distant | NA | NA | 20 (35.7%) | 1 (20.0%) | ||
NA: not available; nCRT: neoadjuvant chemo radiotherapy
Figure 2HER2 assessment of the resectable disease cohort (i) nCRT treated patients and (A) HER2 protein expression scores of the biopsy and resection specimen according to the scoring system of Hoffman et al. (B) The absolute observed difference in HER2 protein expression between the biopsy and resection specimen vs. the mean of both observed scores (Bland-Altman curve) [12]. The dotted lines indicate the 95% Confidence Interval (CI). (C) HER2 status positivity or negativity scored according to the consensus guideline; IHC and an additional SISH performed on IHC 2+ tumor material. (D) The change in HER2 protein expression between biopsy and resection specimen (y-axis) depicted for each score of the biopsy (x-axis). The thickness of the arrows indicate the fraction of patients undergoing this change in expression dynamics. The golden blocks on the x-axis indicate the fraction of patients not undergoing any change in expression dynamics.
Figure 4Example of discordant cases
(A) Discordance between primary tumor biopsy and post-treatment resection specimen Scale bar: 200 μm (i). (B) Discordance between primary tumor resection specimen and metachronous recurrence (ii). Scale bar: 200 μm.
Figure 3HER2 status assessment of the recurrent disease cohort (ii) (A) the IHC protein expression scores of the resection specimen and metastasis according to the scoring system of Hoffman et al. (B) The absolute difference in HER2 protein expression between the resection specimen and metastasis vs the mean of both observed scores (Bland-Altman curve) [12]. The dotted lines indicate the 95% Confidence Interval (CI). (C) HER2 status positivity or negativity scored according to the consensus guideline; IHC and an additional SISH performed on IHC 2+ tumor material. (D) The change in HER2 protein expression between resection specimen and metastasis (y-axis) depicted for each score of the resection specimen (x-axis). The thickness of the arrows indicate the fraction of patients undergoing this change in expression dynamics. The golden blocks on the x-axis indicate the fraction of patients not undergoing any change in expression dynamics.
Regression analysis
| HER2 negative | HER2 positive | 95% CI | ||||||||||||||||||||
| OR | lower limit | upper limit | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 (24.8%) | 3 (33.3%) | 0.661 | 0.158 | 2.766 | 0.571 | |||||||||||||||||
| 27 (16.8%) | 3 (33.3%) | 0.403 | 0.095 | 1.712 | 0.218 | |||||||||||||||||
| Mandard low | Mandard high | 95% CI | ||||||||||||||||||||
| n= 48 | OR | lower limit | upper limit | |||||||||||||||||||
| 4 (3.3%) | 5 (10.4%) | 3.43 | 0.88 | 13.37 | 0.076 | |||||||||||||||||
| yes | no | 95% CI | ||||||||||||||||||||
| OR | lower limit | upper limit | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 (3.2%) | 6 (8.0%) | 1.618 | 0.391 | 6.696 | 0.507 | |||||||||||||||||
| 95% CI | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| OR | Lower limit | Upper limit | Sig. | |||||||||||||||||||
| 0.426 | 0.096 | 1.880 | 0.260 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 0.783 | 0.179 | 3.431 | 0.746 | |||||||||||||||||||
2.1.1. Univariate logistic regression of the influence of the location of the primary tumor and T-stage on the pre-treatment HER2 status, and the influence of the HER2 status of pre-treatment biopsies on the Mandard score and recurrence. 2.1.2. Multivariate analysis of the pre-treatment HER2 status on the location of the tumor and T-stage. 2.2.1. Univariate logistic regression of the influence of the location of the primary tumor, T-stage and Mandard score on the discordance in HER2 status between pre-treament biopsy and resection specimen post-chemoradiation therapy, and the influence of this HER2 status discordance on recurrence. 2.2.2. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the influence of T-stage, location of the primary tumor and Mandard score on discordance in HER2 status between pre-treatment biopsies and resection specimen post-chemoradiation therapy.
Figure 5Flowchart of applied HER2 assessment for FFPE slides of biopsies, resection specimen and recurrences based on the ASCO guideline 2016 [29]