Evaluation of HER2 Gene Amplification using CISH in Patients with HER2 2+ (equivocal) Breast Carcinoma based on Immunohistochemistry in Imam Khomeini Cancer Institute from 2016 to 2018 HER2 amplification in breast carcinoma
Main Article Content
Breast Neoplasms; erbB-2; Estrogen Receptors; Progesterone; Chromogenic in Situ Hybridization; HER2
Background: Human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) is known to be an important prognostic factor in breast cancer. Numerous studies have shown HER2+ breast cancers have reduced overall survival and recovery time, as well as the efficacy of anti-HER2 therapies along with chemotherapy in improving disease outcomes. For this reason, it is recommended that all patients with breast cancer should be evaluated for HER2 status. This study aimed to assess the HER2 gene amplification by the CISH method in evaluating the HER2 status in patients with immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ (equivocal) results.
Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study examined HER2 status based on the Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) method in 280 breast carcinoma samples with an initial 2+ (equivocal) score in IHC. The relationship between HER2 amplification and hormone receptors (estrogen and progesterone) and Ki67 level was also investigated.
Results: In sixty samples (21.4%), the HER2 gene was amplified based on the CISH method. The majority (215, 76.8%) of the samples were negative and 5 (1.8%) samples were indeterminate. No significant relationship was observed between HER2 amplification, estrogen receptor (p=0.143), and ki.67 protein level (p=0.977). There was a significant inverse relationship between HER2 amplification and progesterone receptor positivity (p=0.007).
Conclusion: These results demonstrate that CISH is a helpful method to assess HER2 status in equivocal breast cancer and is positive (amplified) in about 21.4% of them.
2. Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Hughes K, Patel R, Rosen B, Compagnoni G, et al. Underdiagnosis of hereditary breast cancer: are genetic testing guidelines a tool or an obstacle? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2019;37(6):453. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01631.
3. Li N, Sun Y, Zhao S, Liu H, Zhao K. Study on the Efficacy Evaluation of Oral Sequential Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone-dependent Breast Cancer. 2018.
4. Waks AG, Winer EP. Breast cancer treatment: a review. JAMA. 2019;321(3):288-300. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19323.
5. Allred DC. Issues and updates: evaluating estrogen receptor-α, progesterone receptor, and HER2 in breast cancer. Modern Pathology. 2010;23(2):S52-S9. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.55.
6. Soliman NA, Yussif SM. Ki-67 as a prognostic marker according to breast cancer molecular subtype. Cancer biology & medicine. 2016;13(4):496. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0066.
7. Inwald E, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, Hofstädter F, Zeman F, Koller M, Gerstenhauer M, et al. Ki-67 is a prognostic parameter in breast cancer patients: results of a large population-based cohort of a cancer registry. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2013;139:539-52. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2560-8.
8. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. science. 1987;235(4785):177-82. doi: 10.1126/science.3798106.
9. Smith K, Robbins P, Dawkins H, Papadimitriou J, Carrello S, Harvey J, et al. Detection of c-erbB-2 amplification in breast cancer by in situ hybridization. The Breast. 1993;2(4):234-8. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(94)90152-x.
10. Cameron D, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Gelber RD, Procter M, Goldhirsch A, de Azambuja E, et al. 11 years' follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. The Lancet. 2017;389(10075):1195-205. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32616-2.
11. Sheikhpour R, Poorhosseini F. Relation between Estrogen and Progesterone receptor status with p53, Ki67 and Her-2 markers in patients with breast cancer. Iranian Journal of Blood and Cancer. 2016;8(4):93-7. Available from: http://ijbc.ir/article-1-666-en.html
12. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2014;138(2):241-56. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0953-SA.
13. Han X, Shi Y, Ma L, Lyu Z, Yang H, Yao J, et al. Comparison of immunohistochemistry with fluorescencein situhybridization in determining the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status of breast cancer specimens: a multicenter study of 3 149 Chinese patients. Chinese medical journal. 2014;127(2):246-53. doi: Not Available
14. Lee AH, Key HP, Bell JA, Hodi Z, Ellis IO. Breast carcinomas with borderline (2+) HER2 immunohistochemistry: percentage of cells with complete membrane staining for HER2 and the frequency of HER2 amplification. Journal of clinical pathology. 2011;64(6):490-2. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2011.089177.
15. Gheybi MK, Baradaran A, Mohajeri MR, Ostovar A, Hajalikhani P, Farrokhi S. Validity of immunohistochemistry method in predicting HER‐2 gene status and association of clinicopathological variables with it in invasive breast cancer patients. Apmis. 2016;124(5):365-71. doi: 10.1111/apm.12518.
16. Meijer SL, Wesseling J, Smit VT, Nederlof PM, Hooijer GK, Ruijter H, et al. HER2 gene amplification in patients with breast cancer with equivocal IHC results. Journal of clinical pathology. 2011;64(12):1069-72. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200019.
17. Rakha EA, Starczynski J, Lee AH, Ellis IO. The updated ASCO/CAP guideline recommendations for HER 2 testing in the management of invasive breast cancer: a critical review of their implications for routine practice. Histopathology. 2014;64(5):609-15. doi: 10.1111/his.12357.
18. Bankfalvi A, Simon R, Brandt B, Bürger H, Vollmer I, Dockhorn‐Dworniczak B, et al. Comparative methodological analysis of erbB‐2/HER‐2 gene dosage, chromosomal copy number and protein overexpression in breast carcinoma tissues for diagnostic use. Histopathology. 2000;37(5):411-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2000.00984.x.
19. Essmat MK, Abdelwanis MA, Mosad EZ, El-Maghraby TK, Othman AE. Assessment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu gene amplification and expression as a biomarker for radiotherapy and hormonal-treated breast cancer patients in upper Egypt. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2019;15(5):981-8. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_42_17.
20. Dowsett M, Hanby AM, Laing R, Walker R. HER2 testing in the UK: consensus from a national consultation. Journal of clinical pathology. 2007;60(6):685-9. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2006.044321.
21. Ali AHM, Yahya AQ, Mohammed HL. Chromogenic in Situ Hybridization Technique versus Immunohistochemistry in Assessment of HER2/neu Status in 448 Iraqi Patients with Invasive Breast Carcinoma. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2019;7(12):1917. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.342.
22. Jacquemier J, Spyratos F, Esterni B, Mozziconacci M-J, Antoine M, Arnould L, et al. SISH/CISH or qPCR as alternative techniques to FISH for determination of HER2 amplification status on breast tumors core needle biopsies: a multicenter experience based on 840 cases. BMC cancer. 2013;13(1):1-11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-351.
23. Rosa F, Santos R, Rogatto SR, Domingues M. Chromogenic in situ hybridization compared with other approaches to evaluate HER2/neu status in breast carcinomas. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2013;46(3):207-16. doi: 10.1590/1414-431x20132483.
24. Mohammed Ali A, Yahya A, Mohammed H. Chromogenic in situ hybridization technique versus immunohistochemistry in assessment of HER2/neu status in 448 Iraqi patients with invasive breast carcinoma. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.342.
25. Khanam KF, Chowdhury T, Banu SG, Islam S. Determination of HER-2/neu gene Status by Chromogenic in Situ Hybridisation Assay on Borderline (2+) Immunohistochemistry Cases in Patients with Invasive Breast Carcinoma: An Experimental Study on Preserved Tissue. Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin. 2017;43(1):08-15.
26. Bilous M, Morey A, Armes J, Cummings M, Francis G. Chromogenic in situ hybridisation testing for HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer produces highly reproducible results concordant with fluorescence in situ hybridisation and immunohistochemistry. Pathology. 2006;38(2):120-4. doi: 10.1080/00313020600561518.
27. Mayr D, Heim S, Weyrauch K, Zeindl‐Eberhart E, Kunz A, Engel J, et al. Chromogenic in situ hybridization for Her‐2/neu‐oncogene in breast cancer: comparison of a new dual‐colour chromogenic in situ hybridization with immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Histopathology. 2009;55(6):716-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03427.x.
28. van de Vijver M, Bilous M, Hanna W, Hofmann M, Kristel P, Penault-Llorca F, et al. Chromogenic in situ hybridisation for the assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer: an international validation ring study. Breast Cancer Research. 2007;9(5):R68. doi: 10.1186/bcr1776.
29. Huang H, Neven P, Drijkoningen M, Paridaens R, Wildiers H, Van Limbergen E, et al. Association between tumour characteristics and HER-2/neu by immunohistochemistry in 1362 women with primary operable breast cancer. Journal of clinical pathology. 2005;58(6):611-6. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2004.022772.
30. Metib NJ, Kehiosh HJ, Hamzah SK. Correlation and frequency of HER-2/neu Status With Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Carcinomas. Karbala Journal of Medicine. 2016;9(2):2588-99. doi: Not Available
31. Azizun-Nisa BY, Raza F, Kayani N. Comparison of ER, PR and HER-2/neu (C-erb B 2) reactivity pattern with histologic grade, tumor size and lymph node status in breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008;9(4):553-6. doi: Not Available
32. You SH, Chae BJ, Eom YH, Yoo T-K, Kim Y-s, Kim JS, et al. Clinical Differences in Triple-Positive Operable Breast Cancer Subtypes in Korean Patients: An Analysis of Korean Breast Cancer Registry Data. Journal of breast cancer. 2018;21(4):415-24. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2018.21.e53.
33. Rhodes A, Jasani B, Balaton A, Barnes D, Miller K. Frequency of oestrogen and progesterone receptor positivity by immunohistochemical analysis in 7016 breast carcinomas: correlation with patient age, assay sensitivity, threshold value, and mammographic screening. Journal of clinical pathology. 2000;53(9):688-96. doi: 10.1136/jcp.53.9.688.
34. Fernö M, Stål O, Baldetrop B, Hatschek T, Källström A-C, Malmström P, et al. Results of two or five years of adjuvant tamoxifen correlated to steroid receptor and S-phase levels. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2000;59(1):69-76. doi: 10.1023/a:1006332423620.
35. Elkablawy MA, Albasri AM, Mohammed RA, Hussainy AS, Nouh MM, Alhujaily AS. Ki67 expression in breast cancer. Correlation with prognostic markers and clinicopathological parameters in Saudi patients. Saudi Med J. 2016;37(2):137-41. doi: 10.15537/smj.2016.2.12285.
36. Ermiah E, Buhmeida A, Abdalla F, Khaled BR, Salem N, Pyrhönen S, et al. Prognostic value of proliferation markers: immunohistochemical ki-67 expression and cytometric s-phase fraction of women with breast cancer in Libya. Journal of Cancer. 2012;3:421. doi: 10.7150/jca.4944.
37. Agboola AO, Banjo AA, Anunobi CC, Salami B, Agboola MD, Musa AA, et al. Cell proliferation (KI-67) expression is associated with poorer prognosis in Nigerian compared to British breast cancer women. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2013;2013. doi: 10.1155/2013/675051.
38. Pathmanathan N, Balleine RL, Jayasinghe UW, Bilinski KL, Provan PJ, Byth K, et al. The prognostic value of Ki67 in systemically untreated patients with node-negative breast cancer. Journal of clinical pathology. 2014;67(3):222-8. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2013-201793.
39. Maisonneuve P, Disalvatore D, Rotmensz N, Curigliano G, Colleoni M, Dellapasqua S, et al. Proposed new clinicopathological surrogate definitions of luminal A and luminal B (HER2-negative) intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Research. 2014;16(3):R65. doi: 10.1186/bcr3679.
40. Li AQ, Zhou SL, Li M, Xu Y, Shui RH, Yu BH, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of oestrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-negative/Her2-negative breast cancer according to a novel definition of negative progesterone receptor status: a large population-based study from China. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125067. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125067.
Article Statistics :Views : 89 | Downloads : 28 : 2