Rate of reclassification of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases to HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines and response of HER2-equivocal cases to anti-HER2 therapy.

PURPOSE: The 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guideline on HER2 testing in breast cancer permits reclassification of cases with HER2-equivocal results by FISH. The impact of such reclassification is unclear. We sought to determine the proportion of HER2-equivocal cases that are reclassified as HER2-negative and the impact of anti-HER2 therapy on survival in HER2-equivocal cases.
METHODS: We reviewed medical records of breast cancer patients who had HER2 testing by fluorescence in stitu hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) performed or verified at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center during April 2014 through March 2018 and had equivocal results according to the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline. The population was divided into 2 cohorts according to whether the biopsy specimen analyzed came from primary or from recurrent or metastatic disease. HER2 status was reclassified according to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline. Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the relationship between anti-HER2 therapy and clinical outcomes was assessed.
RESULTS: We identified 139 cases with HER2-equivocal results according to the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline: 90 cases of primary disease and 49 cases of recurrent/metastatic disease. Per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline, these cases were classified as follows: overall, HER2-negative 112 cases (80%), HER2-positive 1 (1%), and unknown 26 (19%); primary cohort, HER2-negative 85 (94%), HER2-positive 1 (1%), unknown 4 (4%); and recurrent/metastatic, HER2-negative 27 (55%) and unknown 22 (45%). Five patients in the primary-disease cohort and 1 patient in the recurrent/metastatic-disease cohort received anti-HER2 therapy. There was no significant association between anti-HER2 therapy and OS or EFS in either cohort (primary disease: OS, p = 0.67; EFS, p = 0.49; recurrent/metastatic-disease, OS, p = 0.61; EFS, p = 0.78.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases were reclassified as HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline. No association between anti-HER2 therapy and OS or EFS was observed. HER2-equivocal cases seem to have clinical behavior similar to that of HER2-negative breast cancers.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women worldwide and remains the principal cause of cancer death among women worldwide [1]. Amplification and/or overexpression of the ERBB2 gene, which encodes human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), is seen in 15–20% of invasive breast cancers [2] as determined using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of the HER2 [2, 3]. HER2 contributes to the aggressive features of breast cancers; however, rapid evolution of anti-HER2 therapies, including anti-HER2 antibodies such as trastuzumab [4], pertuzumab [5], T-DM1 [6], and DS-8201 [7] and pan-HER2 inhibitors such as neratinib [8], lapatinib [9], and tucatinib [10], has significantly improved the survival of patients with HER2-positive disease. Thus, accurate HER2 test results are imperative to identify candidates for these therapies.

Implementation of the 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guideline on HER2 testing in breast cancer, compared with the previous guideline from 2007, resulted in increases in the proportion of HER2-positive breast cancers and the proportion of cases with HER2-equivocal results [11-14]. The increase in cases with HER2-equivocal results is a clinical challenge because the benefit of anti-HER2 therapy for this subgroup is uncertain [2]. The 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline attempted to decrease the number of cases with equivocal results by creating 5 groups based on both FISH and IHC results [15]. The “HER2 equivocal” group in the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline corresponds to group 4 in the 2018 guideline and is defined by a FISH HER2/CEP17 ratio of <2 and a mean HER2 copy number of ≥4 and <6 signals/cell. The 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline permits cases in group 4 to be further classified as HER2-positive or HER2-negative based on IHC staining for HER2 done using sections from the same tissue sample used for FISH. If the IHC score is 0 or 1+, the diagnosis is HER2-negative. If the IHC score is 3+, the diagnosis is HER2-positive. If the IHC score is 2+, an FISH recount by an additional pathologist who counts at least 20 cells included with the area with IHC 2+ staining is required. If FISH shows a HER2/CEP17 ratio of ≥4, the diagnosis is HER2-positive; otherwise the diagnosis is HER2-negative.

The therapeutic impact of this change between the 2013 and 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines has yet to be evaluated. In this study, we sought to determine the reclassification rate of HER2-equivocal cases using the new 2018 guideline and the impact of such reclassification in terms of therapy efficacy and long-term clinical outcomes, using a single-center patient case analysis.

Materials and methods

Patients

We reviewed the breast medical oncology (BMO) database to identify breast cancer cases with HER2 FISH performed at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between April 2014 and March 2018 and equivocal HER2 results according to the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline. Not all the cases were treated at MD Anderson, but all cases were reviewed by our own pathologies, and available treatment and follow-up data were captured. If more than 1 HER2-equivocal FISH result occurred in the same patient, we included only the equivocal FISH result with the earliest biopsy date. We excluded cases with a HER2-positive FISH result from testing performed at an outside facility, a HER2-equivocal FISH result from an anatomic site other than the breast, synchronous malignances (except basal cell carcinoma), missing survival data, or receipt of the vaccine E75 because this vaccine was intended to boost the efficacy of anti-HER2 therapy in HER2-equivocal cases. For the remaining cases, we collected clinicopathologic data, treatments received, and clinical outcomes from medical records in the MD Anderson BMO database.

The selected cases were divided into 2 cohorts according to the origin of the tissue that showed the HER2-equivocal FISH result. The first cohort, designated the primary cohort, included cases with tissue obtained from the breast and/or axilla. These cases had been treated with curative intent with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic treatment, surgery, and radiotherapy. The second cohort, designated the recurrent/metastatic cohort, included cases with tissue obtained from a site of recurrent or metastatic disease. Almost all the cases in this cohort had been treated palliatively; only a few cases had been treated with curative intent.

All patients with samples included in this study had been enrolled to a Breast Medical Oncology (BMO) registry protocol approved by Institutional Review Board (protocol #2004–0541). BMO database is updated on every 3 months basis to track the recurrence and deaths/other major events of patients who are seen at Nellie Connally Breast Cancer Clinic at MD Anderson cancer center, and clinical information are collected based on the BMO database registry. The specific analysis for this study was conducted based on the University of Texas MD Anderson institutional protocol PA18-0021, which was reviewed and approved by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Institutional Review Board (MDACC IRB). Since the study was a retrospective tissue-based analysis, the need for informed consents were waved by MDACC IRB.

FISH

FISH assay was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens using the PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe Kit (Abbott Laboratories). A dual probe (HER2 and CEP17) was used in all cases. The FISH result was interpreted as HER2-equivocal according to the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline, and as group 4 according to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline, if the HER2/CEP17 ratio was <2 and the HER2 copy number was ≥4 and <6. If the HER2 FISH result was equivocal and the IHC result was 2+, another pathologist analyzed the same specimen by counting the signals in at least 20 cells that included the area with IHC 2+ staining. If the HER2 FISH result remained equivocal, the HER2 result was reclassified as negative.

Immunohistochemistry

IHC staining was prospectively performed on freshly cut formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections (5 μm) from the same specimen blocks that were used for the HER2 FISH study using the PATHWAY anti-HER2/neu (4B5) rabbit monoclonal antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc.). If the IHC score was 0 or 1+, the HER2 status was reclassified as negative. If the IHC score was 3+, the HER2 status was reclassified as positive. If the IHC score was 2+, the HER2 FISH samples were sent for re-counting by a different pathologist by counting at least 20 cells that included the area with IHC 2+ staining.

Clinical outcomes

The primary clinical outcomes of interest in this study were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). For the primary cohort, survival was defined as the time from the biopsy until death from any cause for OS (except in 5 patients who had OS measured from surgery) and until recurrence or death, whichever occurred first, for EFS. For the recurrent/metastatic cohort, survival was defined as the time from the biopsy for recurrent disease or any biopsy confirmation of stage IV de novo cancer until death from any cause for OS and until progression (assessed clinically or pathologically) or death, whichever occurred first, for EFS. Patients were censored at the last follow-up if they were alive without any event (no recurrence, no progression, and no death).

Statistical analysis

Data were summarized using standard descriptive statistics. Median, mean, and range where appropriate were used to describe continuous variables, and frequency and proportion were used to describe categorical variables. OS time and EFS time were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups based on patient characteristics using the log-rank test. All computations were carried out in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.).

Results

We identified 236 cases with HER2-equivocal FISH results per the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline. Ninety-seven cases were excluded: 45 had a HER2-positive FISH result from a biopsy at an outside facility; 27 represented the second or greater HER2-equivocal FISH result in the same patient; 4 were HER2-equivocal FISH results from a non-breast cancer, all cancers of gastrointestinal origin; 3 occurred in patients with synchronous primary cancers; 14 were missing survival data; and 4 occurred in patients enrolled in a clinical trial of the E75 vaccine to boost anti-HER2 therapy. The remaining 139 cases were included, 90 in the primary cohort and 49 in the recurrent/metastatic cohort (Fig 1). In the primary cohort, 33 cases were treated with neoadjuvant therapy, and 57 were treated with adjuvant therapy. In the recurrent/metastatic cohort, the origin of the biopsied tissue was a locoregional recurrence in 3 cases, a distant recurrence in 32 cases, and stage IV de novo cancer in 14 cases.

Fig 1

FISH HER2-equivocal cases, excluded cases, and distribution into 2 cohorts.

Reasons for exclusion (97 cases):

45 HER2-positive FISH result from outside facility

27 multiple HER2-equivocal FISH results in same patient

4 HER2-equivocal FISH result from another cancer

3 synchronous primary cancer

14 missing survival date

4 enrolled in clinical trial of E75 vaccine

Clinical and disease characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1. In the primary cohort, most patients were female, postmenopausal, or white, and many had an invasive ductal carcinoma, a grade 3 tumor, estrogen receptor–positive disease, or stage II disease. The median age was 52 years, the median FISH ratio was 1.3, the median HER2 copy number was 4.43. In the recurrent/metastatic cohort, patients had similar clinical characteristics as the primary cohort. Sixty five percent of samples in this cohort was biopsied from distant recurrence. The median age was 58 years, the median FISH ratio was 1.2, the median HER2 copy number was 4.43.

Table 1

Clinical and disease characteristics.

Characteristic	Primary cohort	Recurrent/metastatic cohort (n = 49)
	(n = 90)
Age at diagnosis–median (range), y	52 (32–91)	58 (30–83)
Race/ethnicity–no. (%)
White	58 (64)	33 (67)
Asian	4 (4)	2 (4)
Black	14 (16)	7 (14)
Hispanic	11 (12)	4 (8)
Other	3 (3)	3 (6)
Sex–no. (%)
Female	86 (96)	49 (100)
Male	4 (4)
Menopausal status at diagnosis–no. (%)
Postmenopausal	61 (71)	28 (58)
Premenopausal	25 (29)	20 (42)
Unknown	4	1
Histology/cytology–no. (%)
Invasive ductal carcinoma	82 (91)	42 (86)
Invasive lobular carcinoma	2 (2)	2 (4)
Invasive mammary carcinoma	3 (3)	2 (4)
Metastatic carcinoma	2 (2)	3 (6)
Poorly differentiated carcinoma	1 (1)
Stage–no. (%)
I	31 (35)	—
II	35 (39)	—
III	23 (26)	—
IV de novo	—	14 (29)
Distant recurrence	—	32 (65)
Locoregional recurrence	—	3 (6)
Unknown	1	0
Tumor grade–no. (%)
1	3 (3)	0
2	36 (40)	13 (81)
3	50 (56)	3 (19)
Unknown	1	33
Estrogen receptor status–no. (%)
Positive	76 (84)	41 (84)
Negative	14 (16)	8 (16)
Progesterone receptor status–no. (%)
Positive	63 (71)	22 (45)
Negative	26 (29)	27 (55)
Unknown	1
FISH ratio–median (range)	1.3 (1–2)	1.2 (1–2)
HER2 copy number–median (range)	4.4 (4–6)	4.43 (4–6)
Ki-67 –median (range), %	25 (2–95)	22.5 (3–95)

FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization. HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

Reclassification to HER2-negative status

After reclassification according to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline, 112 of the 139 cases (80.5%) were HER2-negative, 1 case (0.7%) was HER2-positive, and 26 cases (18.7%) had unknown HER2 status (Table 2). In the primary cohort, 94.4%, 1.1%, and 4.4% of cases were reclassified as HER2-negative, HER2-positive, and HER2-unknown, respectively, and in the recurrent/metastatic cohort, 55.1%, 0%, and 44.9% of cases were reclassified as HER2-negative, HER2-positive, and HER2-unknown, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2

HER2 status of the HER2-equivocal cases after reclassification according to 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline.

	No. (%) of cases
HER2 status after reclassification	Total	Primary cohort	Recurrent/metastatic cohort
Negative	112 (81)	85 (94)	27 (55)
Positive	1 (1)	1 (1)	0 (0)
Unknown	26 (19)	4 (4)	22 (45)

ASCO/CAP: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists. HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

In the cases in which the IHC score was 2+, prompting re-counting by an additional pathologist, the HER2 score remained equivocal. The IHC scores from the cases with HER2-equivocal results, overall and by cohort, are summarized in Table 3

Table 3

HER2 IHC scores for the HER2-equivocal cases.

	No. (%) of cases
HER2 IHC score	Total	Primary cohort	Recurrent/metastatic cohort
0	9 (6.4)	6 (6.6)	3 (6.1)
1+	45 (32.3)	34 (37.7)	11 (22.4)
2+	58 (41.7)	45 (50.0)	13 (26.5)
3+	1 (0.7)	1 (1.1)	0 (0)
Unknown	26 (18.7)	4 (4.4)	22 (44.9)

HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. IHC: immunohistochemistry.

Treatment

In the primary cohort, 27.7% of cases were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, 73.3% with adjuvant hormonotherapy, and 36.6% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Anthracycline-based chemotherapy was chosen in 72.0% of the cases in the adjuvant setting and in 93.9% of the cases in the neoadjuvant setting (Table 4). In the primary cohort, 5 (5.5%) cases were treated with anti-HER2 therapy, all of them from the group reclassified as HER2-negative according to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline (Fig 2). In the recurrent/metastatic cohort, 1 (2.0%) case was treated with anti-HER2 therapy; this case was also reclassified as HER2-negative according to the 2018 guideline (Fig 2). The chemotherapy backbone regimens used with the anti-HER2 therapy are described in S1 Table.

Table 4

Treatment and residual cancer burden in the HER2-equivocal cases.

Characteristic	No. (%) of patients
Primary cohort
Adjuvant hormonotherapy
Yes	66 (73.3)
No	24 (26.6)
Exclusively	26 (28.8)
Adjuvant chemotherapy
Yes	25 (27.7)
No	65 (72.2)
Adjuvant chemotherapy agent
Anthracycline-containing regimen	18 (72.0)
Non–anthracycline-containing regimen	7 (28.0)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Yes	33 (36.6)
No	57 (63.3)
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy agents
Anthracycline-containing regimen	31 (93.9)
Non–anthracycline-containing regimen	2 (6.1)
Residual cancer burden class
Pathologic complete response	7 (25.0)
I	1 (3.6)
I/II	1 (3.6)
II	12 (42.9)
III	7 (25.0)
Unknown	5
Anti-HER2 therapy
Yes	5 (5.5)
No	85 (94.4)
Recurrent/metastatic cohort
Anti-HER2 therapy
Yes	1 (2.0)
No	48 (98.0)

HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

Fig 2

Anti-HER2 therapy and events in the primary cohort.

Of the 90 HER2-equivocal cases in the primary cohort, 85 (94.4%) cases were reclassified as HER2-negative according to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline. Five cases received anti-HER2 therapy, all in the HER2-negative group. After a median follow-up of 1.91 years, 5 progressions without death and 3 deaths had occurred in the primary cohort. HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. IHC: immunohistochemistry. w/: with. w/o: without.

In the primary cohort, after a median follow-up time of 1.91 years, 5 cases of recurrence without death and 3 deaths had occurred (Fig 2). In the recurrent/metastatic cohort, after a median follow-up time of 2.96 years, 20 cases of progression without death and 15 deaths had occurred (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Anti-HER2 therapy and events in the recurrent/metastatic cohort.

Of the 49 HER2-equivocal cases in the recurrent/metastatic cohort, 27 (55.1%) cases were reclassified as HER2-negative according to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline. Only 1 case received anti-HER2 therapy, in the HER2-negative group. After a median follow-up of 2.96 years, 20 progressions without death and 15 deaths had occurred in the recurrent/metastatic cohort. HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. IHC: immunohistochemistry. w/: with. w/o: without.

In the primary cohort, the median EFS time was not reached, and the EFS rate at 2 years was 90% in patients who did not receive anti-HER2 therapy and 100% in those who received anti-HER2 therapy. In the recurrent/metastatic cohort, the median EFS time was 1.41 years, and the EFS rate at 1 year was 51% in patients who did not receive anti-HER2 therapy and 100% in those who received anti-HER2 therapy (Fig 4). There was no association between the use of anti-HER2 therapy and EFS in either the primary cohort (p = 0.49) or the recurrent/metastatic cohort (p = 0.58). In the primary cohort, the median OS time was not reached, and the OS rate at 2 years was 94% in patients who did not receive anti-HER2 therapy and 100% in those who received anti-HER2 therapy. In the recurrent/metastatic cohort, the median OS time was 6.3 years, and the OS rate at 1 year was 81% in patients who did not receive anti-HER2 therapy and 100% in those who received anti-HER2 therapy (Fig 5). There was no association between the use of anti-HER2 therapy and OS in either the primary cohort (p = 0.67) or the recurrent/metastatic cohort (p = 0.67).

Fig 4

Event-Free Survival (EFS).

Kaplan-Meier estimates of EFS in (A) the primary cohort and (B) the recurrent/metastatic cohort.

Fig 5

Overall Survival (OS).

Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS in (A) the primary cohort and (B) the recurrent/metastatic cohort.

Discussion

In this study, most of the HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases were reclassified as HER2-negative per the 2018 HER2 ASCO/CAP guideline. No association was found between anti-HER2 therapy and OS or EFS among cases with HER2-negative status according to the 2018 guideline.

Interestingly, the proportion of HER2-equivocal cases reclassified as HER2-negative was lower than previously reported. Xu et al [16] and Liu et al [17] previously reported that 100% (44 of 44) and 98.8% (173 of 175) of HER2-equivocal cases, respectively, were reclassified as HER2-negative according to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline. In our study, only 80.5% of HER2-equivocal cases were reclassified as HER2-negative. This discrepancy may be due to the population we chose for the study. Xu et al included patients in whom the biopsy specimens originated exclusively from primary tumors, while Liu et al included patients irrespective of the origin of the biopsy specimen. These populations are both different from our patient population, which included a high proportion of patients in whom the biopsy specimen originated from the site of recurrent/metastatic disease. In our primary cohort, the proportion of HER2-equivocal cases reclassified as HER2-negative was similar (94.4%) to the proportions in both previous studies. However, in our recurrent/metastatic cohort, we faced the challenge of insufficient cytological material for further analysis, which resulted in a higher rate of HER2-unknown cases on reclassification (44.9% in the recurrent/metastatic cohort vs. 4.4% in the primary cohort). This difference of HER2-unkonw cases between two guidelines might also be due to aggressive re-counting HER2 signals by our dedicated breast pathologists. Indeed, the inter-institutional HER2 FISH discrepancy has been previously reported [18].

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze the relationship between EFS and OS and anti-HER2 therapy use in HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases. Unfortunately, the analysis did not show a significant difference in either OS or EFS according to receipt of anti-HER2 therapy. However, the statistical analysis was limited by the small number of cases (6 total) treated with anti-HER2 therapy and the rare cases of recurrence and progression. The reason most of our physicians opted not to use anti-HER2 therapy for this cohort of patients is not clear; however, we speculate that physicians were influenced by studies showing that HER2-equivocal cases may behave like HER2-negative cases [19, 20] and therefore ignored the 2013 ASCO/CAP recommendations to treat HER2-equivocal cases with anti-HER2 therapy [2]. In the primary cohort, the prognosis of the HER2-equivocal cases was similar to that of historical HER2-negative cases [21]. Indeed, the EFS rate at 2 years of ≥90% would have been impossible without anti-HER2 therapy if our cases had exhibited the typical biology of HER2-positive breast cancers [21]. Tong et al. recently reported that the clinical characteristics of HER2-equivocal cases were more similar to those of HER2-negative cases than to those of HER2-positive cases, which also supports this hypothesis [22].

We excluded 97 of 236 cases with HER2-equivocal FISH results from our dataset. In 45 cases, the exclusion was due to an outside HER2-positive result by either IHC or by FISH. All 45 of these cases were treated with anti-HER2 therapy, and these cases could have affected the outcome of our study. Griggs et al. compared the discordance in HER2 results between original and central laboratories and found a HER2 discordance rate of 26% by IHC and of 6% by FISH (performed only if HER2 had an IHC score of 2+) [23]. Moreover, in a recent study [17], chromosome 17 polysomy in HER2-equivocal cases [24] was responsible for a large proportion of changes in HER2 status between classification according to the 2013 and 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines. Another potential explanation for the discrepancy in results between our laboratory and outside laboratories in these 45 cases is tumor heterogeneity [25, 26]. The significance of these discrepancies needs to be studied further because some patients could have received unnecessary anti-HER2 therapy and thereby been exposed to the associated risk of cardiac adverse events.

Our study has several limitations, including the highly selected group of patients included, the small number of cases, the short follow-up time, and the retrospective nature of the study. The inclusion of the patients based on HER2 FISH results could have resulted in inclusion of a high proportion of patients with a HER2 IHC score of 2+ because a HER2 IHC score of 2+ is the typical situation in which physicians proceed with a FISH test. However, approximately 40% of the patients included had a HER2 IHC score other than 2+. Another limitation is that the study was done in only 1 center, which could have been a reason for a low number of patients receiving anti-HER2 therapy. As note, one goal of our study was to address the difference between 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline vs 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline about the HER2 status and see how this change could impact the therapeutic efficacy. The fact that most of them are re-classified as HER2 negative, and even small population did not show the HER2 agent therapy benefit supports that new 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline may be more effective in defining the clinically HER2 positive vs negative groups.

Despite these limitations, our results corroborate the changes in HER2 classification in the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline and do not support the use of anti-HER2 therapy in the previously classified HER2-equivocal group based on 2013 criteria. A prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial with a larger cohort of patients, and a group (group 1–4 in 2018 criteria) based re-analysis is warranted to confirm our observation.

Backbone chemotherapy regimens containing anti-HER2 therapy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-23814

Rate of reclassification of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases to HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines and response of HER2-equivocal cases to anti-HER2 therapy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lim,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 30 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paul J van Diest

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Thank you for including your ethics statement: 'The specific analysis for this study was conducted based on MD Anderson institutional protocol PA18-0021, which was reviewed and approved by the IRB. Since the study was a retrospective tissue-based analysis, no informed consent was obtained specifically for this study'.

(a) Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

(b) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

5.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.].

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a well written article on category/group 4 of the HER2 dual ISH assessment results as defined by the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines. Most of the cases classified as equivocal on the basis of the 2013 recommendations turned out to be negative per definitions of the 2018 recommendations. The limitations of the study are listed, and two of these are the virtual lack of targeted treatment in this subpopulation, and the low frequency of events overall.

The references are not uniformly presented (and therefore cannot follow a uniform instruction set for authors); e.g. both capitals and lower case letters for unabbreviated journal names; full confusion with the author names in item 18...

Reviewer #2: This is a retrospective single center study investigating the rate of reclassification of so-called HER2-equivocal breast cancers (according to ASCO/CAP guidelines of 2013) to either HER2-negative or HER2-positive breast cancers according to revised ASCO/GAP guidelines of 2018. As the benefit of anti-HER2 therapy is obvious in HER2-positive disease but remains unclear in HER2-equivocal breast cancer, it is important to learn if anti-HER2 therapy is valuable in cases who are to be reclassified as HER2-positive according to new guidelines.

The study has been conducted in a well-described manner and FISH analysis and IHC staining are according to international standards.

The authors found that only 80.5% of cases were reclassified as HER2-negative. However, in the results it remains unclear why a considerable proportion of cases (n=26 19%) could not be reclassified to either HER2-positive or negative breast cancer. The definition of unknown HER2 status is lacking: was it technically impossible to reclassify or were insufficient tumour cells available for testing? More importantly, only 1 out of 139 cases was reclassified as HER2-positive.

The impact of anti-HER2 treatment in patients with equivocal HER2-testing in this series remains unclear, as only 1 patient was reclassified as HER2-positive and 19% was reclassified as HER2-unknown, while none of these patients received anti-HER2 treatment. From the NSABP-42 study it is already known that anti-HER2 therapy of HER21+ or 2+ breast cancer as no additional benefit.

This study does therefore not allow to make any conclusions on the impact of anti-HER2 therapy in HER2-equivocal breast cancers, as the number of patients treated with anti-HER2, therapy is too low (n=1 in early breast cancer and n=5 in metastatic breast cancer). Besides, the median follow up (<2 years) is too short to detect any potential benefit both in early breast cancer as well as in metastatic breast cancer as recurrences occur up to 5-10 years after primary diagnosis and median survival in metastatic breast cancer responding to anti-HER2 therapy exceeds 4 years (Cleopatra study).

Reference 7 on a phase 1 study with trastuzumab deruxtecan could be replaced by a phase 2 study by Modi S et al, NEJM 2020;382:610-21.

In conclusion, the study is well written and well performed, but the conclusion on the impact of anti-HER2 therapy in HER2-equivocal breast cancers can not be made.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Gábor CSERNI

Reviewer #2: Yes: Carolina Smorenburg

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

6 Oct 2020

Sep 15, 2020

Dear Dr. Paul J van Diest

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Re: PONE-D-20-23814

Rate of reclassification of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases to HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines and response of HER2-equivocal cases to anti-HER2 therapy

We appreciate the kind and thorough review from Drs Cserni, and Smorenburg.

Here in this revised version, we tried to address all the concerns from the reviewers. The line by line responses to each concern from the reviewers are listed below. We sincerely hope we have either clarified or fixed the areas of concerns.

Reviewer #1: This is a well written article on category/group 4 of the HER2 dual ISH assessment results as defined by the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines. Most of the cases classified as equivocal on the basis of the 2013 recommendations turned out to be negative per definitions of the 2018 recommendations. The limitations of the study are listed, and two of these are the virtual lack of targeted treatment in this subpopulation, and the low frequency of events overall.

We agree that this is a concern and a limitation. However, we believe that negative findings in such case could still be informative to the field, and therefore our study would further encourage the wider studies to continue to improve our targeted therapeutic strategy towards HER2. We tried to elaborate this limitation further in the discussion section.

The references are not uniformly presented (and therefore cannot follow a uniform instruction set for authors); e.g. both capitals and lower case letters for unabbreviated journal names; full confusion with the author names in item 18...

Thank you for pointing this out. We realized that the endnote program did not fix all the references into correct format and we overlooked these - that created errors in several references. We made sure to revise all the references to ensure all the references follow the same format in this revised version.

Reviewer #2: This is a retrospective single center study investigating the rate of reclassification of so-called HER2-equivocal breast cancers (according to ASCO/CAP guidelines of 2013) to either HER2-negative or HER2-positive breast cancers according to revised ASCO/GAP guidelines of 2018. As the benefit of anti-HER2 therapy is obvious in HER2-positive disease but remains unclear in HER2-equivocal breast cancer, it is important to learn if anti-HER2 therapy is valuable in cases who are to be reclassified as HER2-positive according to new guidelines.

The study has been conducted in a well-described manner and FISH analysis and IHC staining are according to international standards.The authors found that only 80.5% of cases were reclassified as HER2-negative. However, in the results it remains unclear why a considerable proportion of cases (n=26 19%) could not be reclassified to either HER2-positive or negative breast cancer. The definition of unknown HER2 status is lacking: was it technically impossible to reclassify or were insufficient tumour cells available for testing? More importantly, only 1 out of 139 cases was reclassified as HER2-positive.

In part, our MD Anderson pathology group follows rigorous exercise when the HER2 is reclassified. Many of our reclassified patients in the recurrent/metastatic group, we obtained additional cytology material to confirm the HER2 FISH status (as mentioned in the page 19, section “ In our primary cohort, the proportion of HER2-equivocal cases reclassified as HER2-negative was similar (94.4%) to the proportions in both previous studies. However, in our recurrent/metastatic cohort, we faced the challenge of insufficient cytological material for further analysis, which resulted in a higher rate of HER2-unknown cases on reclassification (44.9% in the recurrent/metastatic cohort vs. 4.4% in the primary cohort). This difference of HER2-unkonw cases between two guidelines might also be due to aggressive re-counting HER2 signals by our dedicated breast pathologists. Indeed, the inter-institutional HER2 FISH discrepancy has been previously reported (18).” Of course, we will not be able to examine the same in the other studies to carefully evaluate the discrepancy among studies, yet we believe this may be the biggest cause of the difference. We hope our explanation that was already included in the previous manuscript is sufficient to rationalize this.

The impact of anti-HER2 treatment in patients with equivocal HER2-testing in this series remains unclear, as only 1 patient was reclassified as HER2-positive and 19% was reclassified as HER2-unknown, while none of these patients received anti-HER2 treatment. From the NSABP-42 study it is already known that anti-HER2 therapy of HER21+ or 2+ breast cancer as no additional benefit.

We agree. This is one of the major limitations of our study. We believe this was mainly due to reclassification to HER2 negative group at the end of our analysis to re-classify them. As note, one goal of our study was to address the difference between 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline vs 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline about the HER2 status and see how this change could impact the therapeutic efficacy. The fact that most of them are re-classified as HER2 negative, and even small population did not show the HER2 agent therapy benefit supports that new 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline may be more effective in defining the clinically HER2 positive vs negative groups. We added this section to the discussion section as well.

This study does therefore not allow to make any conclusions on the impact of anti-HER2 therapy in HER2-equivocal breast cancers, as the number of patients treated with anti-HER2, therapy is too low (n=1 in early breast cancer and n=5 in metastatic breast cancer). Besides, the median follow up (<2 years) is too short to detect any potential benefit both in early breast cancer as well as in metastatic breast cancer as recurrences occur up to 5-10 years after primary diagnosis and median survival in metastatic breast cancer responding to anti-HER2 therapy exceeds 4 years (Cleopatra study).

In conclusion, the study is well written and well performed, but the conclusion on the impact of anti-HER2 therapy in HER2-equivocal breast cancers can not be made.

I think maybe our statement here gave incorrect message about the anti-HER2 therapy in equivocal cancer – the equivocal group here we mention is based on 2013. To reduce the confusion, we have revised the conclusion sentence that is currently written as “Despite these limitations, our results corroborate the changes in HER2 classification in the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline and do not support the use of anti-HER2 therapy in the HER2-equivocal group.” -> to “Despite these limitations, our results corroborate the changes in HER2 classification in the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline and do not support the use of anti-HER2 therapy in the previously classified HER2-equivocal group based on 2013 criteria.”

Reference 7 on a phase 1 study with trastuzumab deruxtecan could be replaced by a phase 2 study by Modi S et al, NEJM 2020;382:610-21.

Thank you. We have replaced the reference and revised all of our reference to ensure that we follow a correct formatting.

Sincerely,

Bora Lim, M.D.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Oct 2020

Rate of reclassification of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases to HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines and response of HER2-equivocal cases to anti-HER2 therapy

PONE-D-20-23814R1

Dear Dr. Lim,

We’re pleased to inform you that your revised manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paul J van Diest

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

4 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-23814R1

Rate of reclassification of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases to HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines and response of HER2-equivocal cases to anti-HER2 therapy

Dear Dr. Lim:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paul J van Diest

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE