Search

Ki67 has potential clinical importance in breast cancer but has yet to see broad acceptance due to inter-laboratory variability. Here we tested an open source and calibrated automated digital image analysis (DIA) platform to: (i) investigate the comparability of Ki67 measurement across corresponding core biopsy and resection specimen cases, and (ii) assess section to section differences in Ki67 scoring. Two sets of 60 previously stained slides containing 30 core-cut biopsy and 30 corresponding resection specimens from 30 estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients were sent to 17 participating labs for automated assessment of average Ki67 expression. The blocks were centrally cut and immunohistochemically (IHC) stained for Ki67 (MIB-1 antibody). The QuPath platform was used to evaluate tumoral Ki67 expression. Calibration of the DIA method was performed as in published studies. A guideline for building an automated Ki67 scoring algorithm was sent to participating labs. Very high correlation and no systematic error (p = 0.08) was found between consecutive Ki67 IHC sections. Ki67 scores were higher for core biopsy slides compared to paired whole sections from resections (p ≤ 0.001; median difference: 5.31%). The systematic discrepancy between core biopsy and corresponding whole sections was likely due to pre-analytical factors (tissue handling, fixation). Therefore, Ki67 IHC should be tested on core biopsy samples to best reflect the biological status of the tumor.

BackgroundIn the phase III IMpassion130 study, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (A+nP) showed clinical benefit in advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer patients who were programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ (tumor-infiltrating immune cells [IC] ≥1%) using the SP142 immunohistochemistry assay. Here we evaluate 2 other PD-L1 assays for analytical concordance with SP142 and patient-associated clinical outcomes.MethodsSamples from 614 patients (68.1% of intention-to-treat population) were centrally evaluated by immunohistochemistry for PD-L1 status on IC (VENTANA SP142, SP263, Dako 22C3) or as a combined positive score (CPS; 22C3).ResultsUsing SP142, SP263, and 22C3 assays, PD-L1 IC ≥1% prevalence was 46.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 42.5% to 50.4%), 74.9% (95% CI = 71.5% to 78.3%), and 73.1% (95% CI = 69.6% to 76.6%), respectively; 80.9% were 22C3 CPS ≥1. At IC ≥1% (+), the analytical concordance between SP142 and SP263 and 22C3 was 69.2% and 68.7%, respectively. Almost all SP142+ cases were captured by other assays (double positive), but several SP263+ (29.6%) or 22C3+ (29.0%) cases were SP142- (single positive). A+nP clinical activity vs placebo+nP in SP263+ and 22C3+ patients (progression-free survival [PFS] hazard ratios [HRs] = 0.64 to 0.68; overall survival [OS] HRs = 0.75 to 0.79) was driven by double-positive cases (PFS HRs = 0.60 to 0.61; OS HRs = 0.71 to 0.75) rather than single-positive cases (PFS HRs = 0.68 to 0.81; OS HRs = 0.87 to 0.95). Concordance for harmonized cutoffs for SP263 (IC ≥4%) and 22C3 (CPS ≥10) to SP142 (IC ≥1%) was subpar (approximately 75%).Conclusions22C3 and SP263 assays identified more patients as PD-L1+ (IC ≥1%) than SP142. No inter-assay analytical equivalency was observed. Consistent improved A+nP efficacy was captured by the SP142 PD-L1 IC ≥1% subgroup nested within 22C3 and SP263 PD-L1+ (IC ≥1%) populations.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for approximately 12% to 17% of all breast cancers and has an aggressive clinical behavior. Increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte counts are prognostic for survival in TNBC, making this disease a potential target for cancer immunotherapy. Research on immunophenotyping of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes is revealing molecular and structural organization in the tumor microenvironment that may predict patient prognosis. The anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel was the first cancer immunotherapy combination to demonstrate progression-free survival benefit and clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in the first-line treatment of metastatic TNBC (mTNBC) in patients with PD-L1-expressing tumor-infiltrating immune cells in 1% or more of the tumor area. This led to its United States and European Union approval for mTNBC and US approval of the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay as a companion diagnostic immunohistochemistry assay. Subsequently, the anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1 ) antibody pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mTNBC based on progression-free survival benefit in patients with a combined positive score of at least 10 by its concurrently approved 22C3 companion diagnostic assay. Treatment guidelines now recommend PD-L1 testing for patients with mTNBC, and the testing landscape will likely become increasingly complex as new anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 agents and diagnostics are approved for TNBC. Integrating PD-L1 testing into current diagnostic workflows for mTNBC may provide more treatment options for these patients. Therefore, it is critical for medical oncologists and pathologists to understand the available assays and their relevance to therapeutic options to develop an appropriate workflow for immunohistochemistry testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Four biomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), Ki-67, and HER2], are used to stratify breast cancer (BC) into subtypes predictive of therapy response. In a Europe-wide external quality assessment, we compared performance of an mRNA-based method [Xpert® Breast Cancer STRAT4 (CE-IVD)] for determining ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKI67 expression against the gold standard [immunohistochemistry (IHC)/HER2 in situ hybridization (ISH)]. The coordinating center (CC) and five European laboratories tested ten breast cancer samples. STRAT4 binary (positive or negative) results of each marker were compared with the gold standard. ESR1 and ERBB2 mRNA results were concordant with IHC/ISH in all single analyses. In contrast, PGR and MKI67 results were discordant in a few cases, which had STRAT4 expression values close to assay cut-offs and immunohistochemically presented heterogeneous low positive PgR and heterogeneous Ki-67. STRAT4 assay may be a reproducible method. However, cases with expression values close to cut-offs should be carefully reviewed. Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), Ki-67, and HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) together with HER2 in situ hybridization (ISH) are utilized to classify invasive breast cancer (IBC) into predictive molecular subtypes. As IHC evaluation may be hampered by analytical errors, gene expression assays could offer a reliable alternative. In this first Europe-wide external quality assessment (EQA) study, we investigated performance of mRNA-based Xpert® Breast Cancer STRAT4 (CE-IVD) in five European laboratories. The cohort comprised ten pre-therapy IBC core biopsies diagnosed in the coordinating center (CC). STRAT4 binary (positive or negative) mRNA results of each marker (ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, MKI67) were compared with the gold standard IHC/ISH performed by the CC. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ESR1 and ERBB2 mRNA were 100% for all samples. In contrast, PGR expression was falsely negative for one case by two sites and MKI67 falsely negative for two cases (respectively by four and one sites). These cases had STRAT4 expression values close to assay cut-offs and immunohistochemically presented heterogeneous low positive PgR and heterogeneous Ki-67. Our EQA shows that STRAT4 mRNA assay may be a reproducible method to evaluate ER, PgR, HER2, and Ki-67 status. However, cases with expression values close to assay cut-offs should be carefully reviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The promising effect of antibody–drug conjugates on breast cancer with low expression of HER2 (HER2-low) raises many questions regarding the optimal selection of patients for this treatment. A key question is whether HER2 immunohistochemistry, an assay optimised to detect HER2 amplification, is reliable enough to assess HER2 protein levels to select patients with HER2-low breast cancer in daily pathology practices worldwide. Moreover, whether this assessment can be performed with sufficient reproducibility between pathologists in daily practices is debatable. Herein, we address the historical track record of the CAP-ASCO HER2 Guidelines, the reported limited reproducibility by pathologists of HER2 immunohistochemistry in the non-amplified cases, and the performance variation of different antibodies. Based on this summary, we propose solutions to improve the robustness to enable reliable identification of patients with HER2-low breast cancer. • The definitions of HER2 0 and 1+ by IHC need to be redefined by the ASCO/CAP. • HER2 IHC assays are not calibrated to detect low-levels of HER2. • Other issues include reproducibility, different HER2-assay performance, etc. • The errors of the PDL1-saga are currently being repeated in the HER2-low narrative. • Solutions are proposed to industry, regulators, and academia (Table 1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression is emerging as an actionable biomarker for the treatment of breast cancer (BC) with novel anti-HER2 drugs. However, the evolution of this biomarker during the course of disease is still poorly characterised, and controversial data exist on its prognostic implications. We reviewed data of patients with HER2-negative BC according to the latest ASCO/CAP guidelines referred between January 2014 and December 2020. We grouped patients based on the immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression of HER2, HER2-zero (IHC 0) and HER2-low subgroup (IHC 1+ or 2+/ISH-negative) and evaluated the evolution of HER2 expression between the primary tumour and the first biopsy collected in the advanced setting. Disease-free survival, overall survival and progression-free survival were compared between patients with HER2-zero and HER2-low expression on the primary tumour. 232 patients were included in the analysis. Among the overall population, there was a relevant discordance in HER2 expression between the primary tumour and the matched biopsy (K = 0.33, 95%CI 0.21–0.44): 44% of the HER2-zero primary tumour showed an increased HER2 score on biopsy, and 22% of the HER2-low primary tumours turned into HER2-IHC 0. The findings in the sub-populations of hormone-receptors positive (K = 0.32, 95%CI 0.19–0.45) and triple-negative tumours (K = 0.18, 95%CI -0.09-0.46) were consistent with the primary analysis. No difference in survival outcomes was observed between HER2-low and HER2-zero primary tumours. HER2-low expression is dynamic in BC and may be enriched in the advanced-stage setting. No prognostic significance was demonstrated for HER2-low expression. • HER2-low expression is emerging as an actionable biomarker in breast cancer. • HER2 IHC score increased from primary to metastatic tumour in 44% of the patients. • HER2-low to HER2-zero evolution was observed in 22% of the patients. • HER2-low expression is dynamic and may be enriched in the advanced-stage setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]