The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to > 10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.

Purpose To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. Methods ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. Results The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. Recommendations The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to >10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing.

Purpose To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline. Methods Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations. Recommendations Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in > 10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended work-up for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥ 2.0; average HER2 copy number < 4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 4.0 and < 6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results. Find additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Purpose.-To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline.Methods.-Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations.Recommendations.-Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2þ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in .10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not ''must'') be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended workup for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 (HER2/ chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio 2.0; average HER2 copy number ,4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 (HER2/CEP17 ratio ,2.0; average HER2 copy number 6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 (HER2/ CEP17 ratio ,2.0; average HER2 copy number 4.0 and ,6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results.

Trastuzumab in combination with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin is approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (immunohistochemistry 3+ or immunohistochemistry 2+/fluorescence in situ hybridization-positive or immunohistochemistry 2+/silver in situ hybridization-positive) metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-esophageal junction. Approvals are underway in other countries, with recent approvals granted in the United States and Japan. Experience and data from trastuzumab use in breast cancer have highlighted the importance of quality HER2 testing and scoring to ensure accurate identification of patients eligible for treatment. HER2 testing in gastric cancer differs from testing in breast cancer due to inherent differences in tumor biology; gastric cancer more frequently shows HER2 heterogeneity (focal staining) and incomplete membrane staining. Consequently, gastric cancer-specific HER2 testing protocols have been developed and standardized and it is imperative that these recommendations be adhered to. Given the predictive value of HER2 protein levels with response in the trastuzumab for GAstric cancer study (ToGA), immunohistochemistry should be the initial testing methodology and fluorescence in situ hybridization or silver in situ hybridization should be used to retest immunohistochemistry 2+ samples. Wherever possible, bright-field methodologies should be used as these are considered to be superior to fluorescent methodologies at identifying heterogeneous staining. Specific training is required before embarking on HER2 testing in gastric cancer, irrespective of the experience of HER2 testing in breast cancer. This paper provides the most up-to-date practical guidance on HER2 testing and scoring in patients with gastric and gastro-esophageal junction cancer, as agreed by a panel of expert pathologists with extensive experience of HER2 testing particularly reflecting the European Medicines Agency-approved indication. It is anticipated that these recommendations should ensure accurate and consistent HER2 testing, which will allow appropriate selection of patients eligible for treatment with trastuzumab.

Trastuzumab-containing therapy is a standard of care for patients with HER2 þ breast cancer. HER2 status is routinely assigned using in situ hybridization to assess HER2 gene amplification, but interpretation of in situ hybridization results may be challenging in tumors with chromosome 17 polysomy or intratumoral genetic heterogeneity. Apparent chromosome 17 polysomy, defined by increased chromosome enumeration probe 17 (CEP17) signal number, is a common genetic aberration in breast cancer and represents an alternative mechanism for increasing HER2 copy number. Some studies have linked elevated CEP17 count ('polysomy') with adverse clinicopathologic features and HER2 overexpression, although there are numerous discrepancies in the literature. There is evidence that elevated CEP17 ('polysomy') count might account for trastuzumab response in tumors with normal HER2:CEP17 ratios. Nonetheless, recent studies establish that apparent 'polysomy' (CEP17 increase) is usually related to focal pericentromeric gains rather than true polysomy. Assigning HER2 status may also be complex where multiple cell subclones with distinct HER2 amplification characteristics coexist within the same tumor. Such genetic heterogeneity affects up to 40% of breast cancers when assessed according to a College of American Pathologists guideline, although other definitions have been proposed. Recent data have associated heterogeneity with unfavorable clinicopathologic variables and poor prognosis. Genetically heterogeneous tumors harboring HER2-amplified subclones have the potential to benefit from trastuzumab, but this has yet to be evaluated in clinical studies. In this review, we discuss the implications of apparent polysomy 17 and genetic heterogeneity for assigning HER2 status in clinical practice. Among our recommendations, we support the use of mean HER2 copy number rather than HER2:CEP17 ratio to define HER2 positivity in cases where coamplification of the centromere might mask HER2 amplification. We also highlight a need to harmonize in situ hybridization scoring methodology to support accurate HER2 status determination, particularly where there is evidence of heterogeneity.

Knowledge of HER2 status is a prerequisite when considering a patient's eligibility for Herceptin (trastuzumab) therapy. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential to ensure that all patients who may benefit from Herceptin are correctly identified. There are several assays available to determine HER2 status: the most common in routine clinical practice are immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Various factors can affect the results achieved with these assays, including the assay antibody/probe, the methodology and the experience of personnel. Many countries have implemented national testing guidelines in an attempt to standardize testing procedures and make results more accurate. These guidelines vary in the level of detail and the number of recommendations. This review looks at areas of consensus between the different national testing guidelines and highlights where errors may arise during the testing procedure. The key point underlined by this review is that whatever method is used to test for HER2 status, the technology must be validated first, and there must be regular internal and external quality control and quality assurance procedures. Progress in molecular biology has resulted in the identification and greater understanding of molecular markers that may have prognostic and predictive value for breast cancer patients. The human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2/neu/cerbB-2) is one of the best characterized of such markers. The subset of patients with breast cancer demonstrating a HER2-positive status has aggressive tumors and a poor prognosis (1-3). There is mounting evidence that HER2 status may predict response to chemotherapy and hormonal therapy, although conclusive data are needed (4, 5). Most important, demonstration of high HER2 receptor overexpression or HER2 gene amplification is essential for treatment with the anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody therapy Herceptin, which has significant clinical benefits in patients with metastatic breast cancer (6 -8). Clinical studies have also shown that the level of HER2 overexpression correlates with clinical benefit. Patients whose tumors have high HER2 receptor overexpression and/or amplification of the HER2 gene benefit most from Herceptin (7, 9 -11). For these reasons, testing for HER2 status is important for the management of patients with breast cancer, and accurately assessing HER2 status is essential in deciding which patients will benefit from Herceptin therapy. Currently, no single assay is globally accepted as the gold standard for HER2 testing. Factors that can lead to inaccuracies in HER2 testing results include preparation, fixation, and storage of the tissue sec-

Breast core needle biopsy (CNB) is an accurate test but may result in borderline histology (lesions of uncertain malignant potential or B3). This is an evaluation of the largest series (to date) of B3 histology, which focusses on estimating positive predictive values (PPV) for malignancy. We identified all B3 CNBs over a 10-year period in a single institution (N ¼ 372) from a series of 4035 consecutive needle biopsies. We describe the imaging findings, and report excision histology outcomes (N ¼ 279) and category-specific PPV for B3 lesions using two approaches including estimates based on subjects who had either excision or follow-up (N ¼ 328). B3 represented 9.2% of all CNB results. Excision histology was benign in 181 (64.9%) and malignant in 98 (35.1%) subjects (61 ductal carcinoma in situ, 37 invasive carcinoma). Positive predictive value for malignancy (based on excision histology) was 35.1% (95% CI: 29.5 -40.7) and PPV (based on excision or review) was 29.9% (95% CI: 24.9 -34.8). Lesion-specific PPV (estimates in parentheses for excision or follow-up) was atypical ductal hyperplasia 44.7% (40.6%); lobular intraepithelial neoplasia 60.9% (58.3%); papillary lesion 22.7% (15.9%); radial scar 16.7% (12.3%); phyllodes tumour 12.5% (12.5%); and B3 not specified 20.0%. Approximately one-third of CNB results classified as B3 are malignant on excision, and the likelihood of malignancy varies substantially between specific lesion groups. Whereas cases may be selectively managed without surgery, the majority warrant excision biopsy based on our estimates. Research is needed to improve differentiation between malignant and benign diseases in B3 lesions using diagnostic or predictive methods.