Assessment ofERBB2/HER2Status inHER2-Equivocal Breast Cancers by FISH and 2013/2014 ASCO-CAP Guidelines

Press, Michael F.; Seoane, José A.; Curtis, Christina; Quinaux, Emmanuel; Guzman, Roberta; Sauter, Guido; Eiermann, W.; Mackey, John R.; Robert, Nicholas J.; Crown, John; Martín, Miguel; Valero, Vicente; Bée, Valerie; Ma, Yanling; Villalobos, Ivonne; Slamon, Dennis J.

doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6012

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Murray et al, 13 Li et al, 14 Liu et al, 10 Xu et al, 12 and Hoda et al 15 focused on identifying the false-positive FISH cases to avoid unwarranted HDT. 10,16,17 The 2018 updated ASCO/CAP guidelines have eliminated the equivocal HER-2 FISH results and the subsequent dilemma for the medical oncologist and patients for HDT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The expert panel of ASCO/CAP recommends that the tumor with HER‐2 IHC 2+/1+ in group 2 and group 4 should not be treated with HDT while IHC 3+ in these groups should make the final HER‐2 result positive with the subsequent indication for HDT. Hence, the 2018 updated guidelines focused on identifying the false‐positive FISH cases to avoid unwarranted HDT 10,16,17 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines on HER‐2 reporting categories of IHC and reflex FISH in breast cancer

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) is an established prognostic and predictive biomarker for breast cancer. To ensure accuracy and uniformity for HER-2 testing, ASCO/CAP published guidelines in 2007 which were updated in 2013 and recently in 2018. In this first study from Indian Oncology center, we evaluated the impact of 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines. We found a substantial decrease in equivocal IHC cases (P-value < .00001). On reclassification, a total of 5.6% cases from equivocal and positive categories (2013 guidelines) shifted to the negative FISH result category (P-value < .0001), with adoption of 2018 guidelines and eliminated the double equivocal cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines on HER‐2 reporting categories of IHC and reflex FISH in breast cancer

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline recommended alternative probes for another gene in chromosome 17, not expected to co‐amplify with HER2. However, these probes' clinical validity had been put in question by the finding that their genetic loci tend to be heterozygously deleted in a substantial proportion of breast cancers, potentially resulting in false positive HER2 amplification 43 . The 2018 revision of ASCO/CAP guideline recommended against the routine use of alternative probes and instead suggested IHC and FISH recounts to resolve equivocal cases 17 .…”

Section: Classical Subtyping Methods− Ihc and Fishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular intrinsic versus clinical subtyping in breast cancer: A comprehensive review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease manifesting diversity at the molecular, histological and clinical level. The development of breast cancer classification was centered on informing clinical decisions. The current approach to the classification of breast cancer, which categorizes this disease into clinical subtypes based on the detection of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and proliferation marker Ki67, is not ideal. This is manifested as a heterogeneity of therapeutic responses and outcomes within the clinical subtypes. The newer classification model, based on gene expression profiling (intrinsic subtyping) informs about transcriptional responses downstream from IHC single markers, revealing deeper appreciation for the disease heterogeneity and capturing tumor biology in a more comprehensive way than an expression of a single protein or gene alone. While accumulating evidences suggest that intrinsic subtypes provide clinically relevant information beyond clinical surrogates, it is imperative to establish whether the current conventional immunohistochemistry‐based clinical subtyping approach could be improved by gene expression profiling and if this approach has a potential to translate into clinical practice.

show abstract

“…The detailed methods of assessing these parameters have been described elsewhere [ 16 ]. Molecular-like breast cancer subtypes were defined as follows: Luminal A-like: ER-positive and/or PR-positive, in at least 10% of tumor cell nuclei (through December, 2009) or in at least 1% of tumor cell nuclei (since January, 2010); HER2-negative, Ki-67 < 14% Luminal B-like (HER2-negative): ER-positive and/or PR-positive, HER2-negative, Ki-67 ≥ 14% [ 4 ]; HER2-enriched: HER2 + by either immunohistochemistry (IHC 3 +) [ 45 ] or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or both [ 43 , 44 , 46 ]. Basal-like or triple-negative: ER-negative, PR-negative, and HER2-negative.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…HER2-enriched: HER2 + by either immunohistochemistry (IHC 3 +) [ 45 ] or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or both [ 43 , 44 , 46 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) amplification on the prognosis of breast cancer patients

Erber

Rübner

Davenport

et al. 2020

Breast Cancer Res Treat

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Assessment ofERBB2/HER2Status inHER2-Equivocal Breast Cancers by FISH and 2013/2014 ASCO-CAP Guidelines

Cited by 29 publications

References 47 publications

Impact of 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines on HER‐2 reporting categories of IHC and reflex FISH in breast cancer

Impact of 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines on HER‐2 reporting categories of IHC and reflex FISH in breast cancer

Molecular intrinsic versus clinical subtyping in breast cancer: A comprehensive review

Impact of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) amplification on the prognosis of breast cancer patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About