Title |
Intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancers categorized as HER2-positive using an alternative chromosome 17 probe assay
|
---|---|
Published in |
Breast Cancer Research, July 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13058-018-1005-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Neelam V. Desai, Vanda Torous, Joel Parker, James T. Auman, Gary B. Rosson, Cassandra Cruz, Charles M. Perou, Stuart J. Schnitt, Nadine Tung |
Abstract |
The 2013 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-College of American Pathologists (ASCO-CAP) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing guidelines recommend using an alternative chromosome 17 probe assay to resolve HER2 results determined to be equivocal by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH). However, it is unclear if cases considered HER2-positive (HER2+) by the alternative probe method are similar to those classified as HER2+ by traditional IHC and FISH criteria and benefit the same from HER2-targeted therapies. We studied the clinical and pathologic features of all 31 breast cancers classified as HER2+ by the alternative probe method at our institution since 2013 and determined their PAM50 intrinsic molecular subtypes. For comparison, we analyzed 19 consecutive cases that were classified as HER2+ by traditional FISH criteria during the same time period. Thirty (97%) cancers in the alternative probe cohort were estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ER+), while only 9/19 (47%) of traditional HER2 controls were ER+ (p = 0.0002). Sufficient tissue for intrinsic subtype analysis was available for 20/31 cancers in the alternative probe cohort and 9/19 in the traditional HER2+ group. None (0%) of the 20 alternative probe-positive cases were of the HER2-enriched intrinsic subtype, while 8/9 (89%) of those HER2+ by traditional FISH criteria were HER2-enriched (p = 0.0001). These findings suggest that breast cancers classified as HER2+ only by the alternative probe method are biologically distinct from those classified as HER2+ by traditional criteria, and raises questions as to whether or not they derive the same benefit from HER2-targeted therapies. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 25% |
Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
Librarian | 1 | 4% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 18% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 14% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 11% |
Engineering | 2 | 7% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Unknown | 10 | 36% |