PurposeThe methods (IHC/FISH) typically used to assess ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 in FFPE specimens from breast cancer patients are difficult to set up, perform, and standardize for use in low and middle-income countries. Use of an automated diagnostic platform (GeneXpert®) and assay (Xpert® Breast Cancer STRAT4) that employs RT-qPCR to quantitate ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67 mRNAs from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues facilitates analyses in less than 3 h. This study compares breast cancer biomarker analyses using an RT-qPCR-based platform with analyses using standard IHC and FISH for assessment of the same biomarkers.MethodsFFPE tissue sections from 523 patients were sent to a College of American Pathologists-certified central reference laboratory to evaluate concordance between IHC/FISH and STRAT4 using the laboratory’s standard of care methods. A subset of 155 FFPE specimens was tested for concordance with STRAT4 using different IHC antibodies and scoring methods.ResultsConcordance between STRAT4 and IHC was 97.8% for ESR1, 90.4% for PGR, 93.3% for ERBB2 (IHC/FISH for HER2), and 78.6% for MKi67. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.99, 0.95, 0.99, and 0.85 were generated for ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67, respectively. Minor variabilities were observed depending on the IHC antibody comparator used.ConclusionEvaluation of breast cancer biomarker status by STRAT4 was highly concordant with central IHC/FISH in this blinded, retrospectively analyzed collection of samples. STRAT4 may provide a means to cost-effectively generate standardized diagnostic results for breast cancer patients in low- and middle-income countries.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-018-4889-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Addition of fulvestrant to erlotinib was well tolerated, with increased activity noted among EGFR wild type patients compared to erlotinib alone, albeit in an unplanned subset analysis.

The mitotic protein polo-like kinase 4 (PLK4) plays a critical role in centrosome duplication for cell division. By using immunofluorescence, we confirm that PLK4 is localized to centrosomes. In addition, we find that phospho-PLK4 (pPLK4) is cleaved and distributed to kinetochores (metaphase and anaphase), spindle midzone/cleavage furrow (anaphase and telophase), and midbody (cytokinesis) during cell division in immortalized epithelial cells as well as breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer cells. The distribution of pPLK4 midzone/cleavage furrow and midbody positions pPLK4 to play a functional role in cytokinesis. Indeed, we found that inhibition of PLK4 kinase activity with a small-molecule inhibitor, CFI-400945, prevents translocation to the spindle midzone/cleavage furrow and prevents cellular abscission, leading to the generation of cells with polyploidy, increased numbers of duplicated centrosomes, and vulnerability to anaphase or mitotic catastrophe. The regulatory role of PLK4 in cytokinesis makes it a potential target for therapeutic intervention in appropriately selected cancers.

Purpose Various aberrations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor genes FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3 are found in different cancers, including breast cancer (BC). This study analyzed the impact of FGFR amplification on the BC prognosis. Methods The study included 894 BC patients. The amplification rates of FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3 were evaluated on tissue microarrays using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Associations between these parameters and prognosis were analyzed using multivariate Cox regression analyses. Results FGFR1 FISH was assessable in 503 samples, FGFR2 FISH in 447, and FGFR3 FISH in 562. The FGFR1 amplification rate was 6.6% (n = 33). Increased FGFR2 copy numbers were seen in 0.9% (n = 4); only one patient had FGFR3 amplification (0.2%). Most patients with FGFR1 amplification had luminal B-like tumors (69.7%, n = 23); only 32.6% (n = 153) of patients without FGFR1 amplification had luminal B-like BC. Other patient and tumor characteristics appeared similar between these two groups. Observed outcome differences between BC patients with and without FGFR1 amplification did not achieve statistical significance; however, there was a trend toward poorer distant metastasis-free survival in BC patients with FGFR1 amplification (HR = 2.08; 95% CI 0.98 to 4.39, P = 0.05). Conclusion FGFR1 amplification occurs most frequently in patients with luminal B-like BC. The study showed a nonsignificant correlation with the prognosis, probably due to the small sample size. Further research is therefore needed to address the role of FGFR1 amplifications in early BC patients. FGFR2 and FGFR3 amplifications are rare in patients with primary BC.