Top

Published in:

01-09-2016 | Original Article

An international study comparing conventional versus mRNA level testing (TargetPrint) for ER, PR, and HER2 status of breast cancer

Authors: Jelle Wesseling, Corrado Tinterri, Anna Sapino, Fabrizio Zanconati, Martijn Lutke-Holzik, Bichlien Nguyen, Kenneth B Deck, Patrizia Querzoli, Tiziana Perin, Carmela Giardina, Gerhard Seitz, Jean-Marc Guinebretière, Julie Barone, Laura Dekker, Femke de Snoo, Lisette Stork-Sloots, Paul Roepman, Toru Watanabe, Pino Cusumano

Published in: Virchows Archiv | Issue 3/2016

Abstract

To compare results from messenger RNA (mRNA)-based TargetPrint testing with those from immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) conducted according to local standard procedures at hospitals worldwide. Tumor samples were prospectively obtained from 806 patients at 22 hospitals. The mRNA level of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) was assessed by TargetPrint quantitative gene expression readouts. IHC/ISH assessments were performed according to local standards at the participating hospitals. TargetPrint readout showed a high concordance with IHC/ISH of 95 % (kappa 0.81) for ER, 81 % (kappa 0.56) for PR, and 94 % (kappa 0.76) for HER2. The positive/negative agreement between TargetPrint and IHC for ER, PR, and HER2 was 96 %/87 %, 84 %/74 %, and 74 %/98 %, respectively. The concordance rate in IHC/ISH results between hospitals varied: 88–100 % for ER (kappa 0.50–1.00); 50–100 % for PR (kappa 0.20–1.00); and 90–100 % for HER2 (kappa 0.59–1.00). mRNA readout of ER, PR, and HER2 status by TargetPrint was largely comparable to local IHC/ISH analysis. However, there was substantial discordance in IHC/ISH results between different hospitals. When results are discordant, the use of TargetPrint would improve the reliability of hormone receptor and HER2 results by prompting retesting in a reference laboratory.

Febbo PG, Ladanyi M, Aldape KD, et al: NCCN task force report: evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2011;(suppl 5):S1-S32

Liu S, Chia SK, Mehl E, et al. (2010) Progesterone receptor is a significant factor associated with clinical outcomes and effect of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119:53–61CrossRefPubMed

Loi S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, et al. (2008) Predicting prognosis using molecular profiling in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. BMC Genomics 9:239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, et al. (2009) Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 20:1319–1329CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al. (2011) Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22:1736–1747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al. (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287–5312CrossRefPubMed

National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN 2015 Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast Cancer. Version 2.2015.http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf

Bordeaux JM, Cheng H, Welsh AW, et al. (2012) Quantitative in situ measurement of estrogen receptor mRNA predicts response to tamoxifen. PLoS One 7:e36559CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Iverson AA, Gillett C, Cane P, et al. (2009) A single-tube quantitative assay for mRNA levels of hormonal and growth factor receptors in breast cancer specimens. J Mol Diagn 11:117–130CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Nguyen B, Cusumano PG, Deck K, et al. (2012) Comparison of molecular subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to local clinical subtyping in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 19:3257–3263CrossRefPubMed

11.

Roepman P, Horlings HM, Krijgsman O, et al. (2009) Microarray-based determination of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptor status in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 15:7003–7011CrossRefPubMed

12.

Viale G, Slaets L, Bogaerts J, et al. (2014) High concordance of protein (by IHC), gene (by FISH; HER2 only) and microarray readout (by TargetPrint) of ER/PR/HER2: results from EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial. Ann Oncol 25(4):816–823CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Allred DC (2010) Issues and updates: evaluating estrogen receptor-alpha, progesterone receptor, and HER2 in breast cancer. Mod Pathol 23(suppl 2):S52–S59CrossRefPubMed

14.

Arihiro K, Umemura S, Kurosumi M, et al. (2007) Comparison of evaluations for hormone receptors in breast carcinoma using two manual and three automated immunohistochemical assays. Am J Clin Pathol 127:356–365CrossRefPubMed

15.

Oyama T, Ishikawa Y, Hayashi M, et al. (2007) The effects of fixation, processing and evaluation criteria on immunohistochemical detection of hormone receptors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer 14:182–188CrossRefPubMed

16.

Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Nuyten DS, Wesseling J, et al. (2010) The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment. Ann Oncol 21:40–47CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:2784–2795CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Carlson RW, Moench SJ, Hammond ME, et al. (2006) HER2 testing in breast cancer: NCCN task force report and recommendations. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 4(suppl 3):S1–S22

19.

Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:118–145CrossRefPubMed

20.

Fitzgibbons PL, Murphy DA, Hammond ME, et al. (2010) Recommendations for validating estrogen and progesterone receptor immunohistochemistry assays. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134:930–935PubMed

21.

Allred DC (2008) Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada. Oncologist 13:1134–1136CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hede K (2008) Breast cancer testing scandal shines spotlight on black box of clinical laboratory testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:836–837CrossRefPubMed

23.

Rhodes A, Jasani B, Barnes DM, et al. (2000) Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems. J Clin Pathol 53:125–130CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Viale G, Regan MM, Maiorano E, et al. (2007) Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1-98. J Clin Oncol 25:3846–3852CrossRefPubMed

25.

Perez EA, Suman VJ, Davidson NE, et al. (2006) HER2 testing by local, central, and reference laboratories in specimens from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 intergroup adjuvant trial. J Clin Oncol 24:3032–3038CrossRefPubMed

26.

Reddy JC, Reimann JD, Anderson SM, et al. (2006) Concordance between central and local laboratory HER2 testing from a community-based clinical study. Clin Breast Cancer 7:153–157CrossRefPubMed

27.

Chang HR (2010) Trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer 116:2856–2867CrossRefPubMed

28.

Hortobagyi GN (2012) Toward individualized breast cancer therapy: translating biological concepts to the bedside. Oncologist 17:577–584CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Delahaye L, Wehkamp D, Floore A, et al. (2013) Analytical validity of the MammaPrint® breast cancer diagnostic gene signature. Perinat Med 10(8):801–811

30.

Roepman P, Schuurman A, Delahaye LJ, et al: A gene expression profile for detection of sufficient tumour cells in breast tumour tissue: microarray diagnosis eligibility. BMC Med Genet 2009 Aug 12;2:52.

31.

Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef

32.

Viale G, Slaets L, de Snoo FA, et al. Discordant assessment of tumor biomarkers by histopathological and molecular assays in the EORTC randomized controlled 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial breast cancer : intratumoral heterogeneity and DCIS or normal tissue components are unlikely to be the cause of discordance. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016 Feb. 155(3):463–469

33.

Ma XJ, Hilsenbeck SG, Wang W, et al. (2006) The HOXB13:IL17BR expression index is a prognostic factor in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:4611–4619CrossRefPubMed

34.

TO N, Parker JS, Leung S, et al. (2010) A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16:5222–5232CrossRef

35.

Umemura S, Osamura RY, Akiyama F, et al. (2008) What causes discrepancies in HER2 testing for breast cancer? A Japanese ring study in conjunction with the global standard. Am J Clin Pathol 130:883–891CrossRefPubMed

36.

Tsuda H, Kurosumi M, Umemura S, et al. (2010) HER2 testing on core needle biopsy specimens from primary breast cancers: interobserver reproducibility and concordance with surgically resected specimens. BMC Cancer 10:534CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Baehner FL, Achacoso N, Maddala T, et al. (2010) Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 assessment in a case-control study: comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction performed by central laboratories. J Clin Oncol 28:4300–4306CrossRefPubMed

38.

Dabbs DJ, Klein ME, Mohsin SK, et al. (2011) High false-negative rate of HER2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of the Oncotype DX test: an independent quality assurance study. J Clin Oncol 29:4279–4285CrossRefPubMed

39.

Pinhel I, Hills M, Drury S, et al. (2012) ER and HER2 expression are positively correlated in HER2 non-overexpressing breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 14:R46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Dowsett M, Hanna WM, Kockx M, et al. (2007) Standardization of HER2 testing: results of an international proficiency-testing ring study. Mod Pathol 20:584–591CrossRefPubMed

41.

McCullough AE, Dell'orto P, Reinholz MM, et al. Central pathology laboratory review of HER2 and ER in early breast cancer: an ALTTO trial [BIG 2-06/NCCTG N063D (alliance)] ring study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014 Feb. 143(3):485–492.

42.

Dowsett M, Allred C, Knox J, et al. (2008) Relationship between quantitative estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) status with recurrence in the arimidex, tamoxifen, alone or in combination trial. J Clin Oncol 26:1059–1065CrossRefPubMed

43.

Phillips T, Murray G, Wakamiya K, et al. (2007) Development of standard estrogen and progesterone receptor immunohistochemical assays for selection of patients for antihormonal therapy. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 15:325–331CrossRefPubMed

44.

Viale G, Regan MM, Maiorano E, et al. (2008) Chemoendocrine compared with endocrine adjuvant therapies for node-negative breast cancer: predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors—International Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 26:1404–1410CrossRefPubMed

45.

Iwamoto T, Booser D, Valero V, et al. (2012) Estrogen receptor (ER) mRNA and ER-related gene expression in breast cancers that are 1 % to 10 % ER-positive by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol 30:729–734CrossRefPubMed

Title: An international study comparing conventional versus mRNA level testing (TargetPrint) for ER, PR, and HER2 status of breast cancer
Authors: Jelle Wesseling
Corrado Tinterri
Anna Sapino
Fabrizio Zanconati
Martijn Lutke-Holzik
Bichlien Nguyen
Kenneth B Deck
Patrizia Querzoli
Tiziana Perin
Carmela Giardina
Gerhard Seitz
Jean-Marc Guinebretière
Julie Barone
Laura Dekker
Femke de Snoo
Lisette Stork-Sloots
Paul Roepman
Toru Watanabe
Pino Cusumano
Publication date: 01-09-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Virchows Archiv / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0945-6317
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-016-1979-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

An international study comparing conventional versus mRNA level testing (TargetPrint) for ER, PR, and HER2 status of breast cancer

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Nestin expression on tumour vessels and tumour-infiltrating macrophages define a poor prognosis subgroup of pt1 clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Book Review—Diagnostic pathology: soft tissue tumors, 2nd edition

In this issue

Gastric-type adenocarcinoma in situ of uterine cervix: cytological and histopathological features of two cases

Total intraglandular and index tumor volumes predict biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer

Prognostic relevance of histopathological features in signet ring cell carcinoma of the colorectum