Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2019

Open Access 01-06-2019 | Breast Cancer | Epidemiology

Hormone- and HER2-receptor assessment in 33,046 breast cancer patients: a nationwide comparison of positivity rates between pathology laboratories in the Netherlands

Authors: Carmen van Dooijeweert, Ivette A. G. Deckers, Inge O. Baas, Elsken van der Wall, Paul J. van Diest

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Patient management of invasive breast cancer (IBC) is to a large extent based on hormone- and HER2-receptor assessment. High-quality, reliable receptor assessment is of key importance as false results may lead to under- or overtreatment of patients. Surveillance of case-mix adjusted positivity rates has been suggested as a tool to identify laboratories with insufficient testing assays, as this covers the whole process of receptor assessment and enables laboratories to benchmark their positivity rates against other laboratories. We studied laboratory-specific variation in hormone- and HER2 positivity rates of 33,046 breast cancer patients using real-life nationwide data.

Methods

All synoptic pathology reports of IBC resection-specimens, obtained between 2013 and 2016, were retrieved from the nationwide Dutch pathology registry (PALGA). Absolute and case-mix adjusted receptor positivity rates were compared to the mean national proportion and presented in funnel plots in separate analyses for estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR) and HER2. Case-mix adjustment was performed by multivariable logistic regression.

Results

33,794 IBC lesions from 33,046 patients of 39 pathology laboratories were included. After case-mix adjustment, mean positivity rates were 87.2% for ER (range 80.4–94.3), 71.3% for PR (62.5–77.5%), and 9.9% for HER2 (5.5–12.7%). Overall, 14 (35.9%), 17 (43.6%) and 11 (28.2%) laboratories showed positivity rates outside the 95% confidence interval for ER, PR and HER2, respectively.

Conclusion

This nationwide study shows that absolute variation in hormone- and HER2-receptor positivity rates between Dutch pathology laboratories is limited. Yet, the considerable number of outlying laboratories shows that there is still need for improvement. Continuous monitoring and benchmarking of positivity rates may help to realize this.
Literature
1.
2.
Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A et al (2015) Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2015. Ann Oncol 26(8):1533–1546CrossRef
3.
McCullough AE, Dell’orto P, Reinholz MM et al (2014) 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 143(3):485–492CrossRef
4.
Duffy MJ, Harbeck N, Nap M et al (2017) Clinical use of biomarkers in breast cancer: updated guidelines from the European Group on tumor markers (EGTM). Eur J Cancer 75:284–298CrossRef
5.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365(9472):1687–1717CrossRef
6.
Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R et al (2011) Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 378(9793):771–784CrossRef
7.
Choritz H, Busche G, Kreipe H (2011) Quality assessment of HER2 testing by monitoring of positivity rates. Virchows Arch 459(3):283–289CrossRef
8.
Burstein HJ, Temin S, Anderson H et al (2014) Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol 32(21):2255–2269CrossRef
9.
Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S et al (2015) on behalf of the ESMO guidelines committee; primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26(suppl_5):v8–v30CrossRef
10.
Hammond MEH, 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(16):2784–2795CrossRef
11.
Bowles EJA, Wellman R, Feigelson HS et al (2012) Risk of heart failure in breast cancer patients after anthracycline and trastuzumab treatment: a retrospective cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst 104(17):1293–1305CrossRef
12.
Perez EA, Suman VJ, Davidson NE et al (2008) Cardiac Safety analysis of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with or without trastuzumab in the north central cancer treatment group N9831 adjuvant breast cancer trial. J Clin Oncol 26(8):1231–1238CrossRef
13.
Romond EH, Jeong JH, Rastogi P et al (2012) Seven-year follow-up assessment of cardiac function in NSABP B-31, a randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (ACP) with ACP plus trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(31):3792–3799CrossRef
14.
Rüschoff J, Lebeau A, Kreipe H et al (2016) Assessing HER2 testing quality in breast cancer: variables that influence HER2 positivity rate from a large, multicenter, observational study in Germany. Mod Pathol 30:217CrossRef
15.
Russell SD, Blackwell KL, Lawrence J et al (2010) Independent adjudication of symptomatic heart failure with the use of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by trastuzumab adjuvant therapy: a combined review of cardiac data from the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-31 and the north central cancer treatment group N9831 clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 28(21):3416–3421CrossRef
16.
Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG et al (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997–4013CrossRef
17.
Cuadros M, Cano C, Lopez FJ et al (2011) HER2 status in breast cancer: experience of a Spanish National reference centre. Clin Transl Oncol 13(5):335–340CrossRef
18.
Denkert C, Huober J, Loibl S et al (2013) HER2 and ESR1 mRNA expression levels and response to neoadjuvant trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in patients with primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 15(1):R11CrossRef
19.
Orlando L, Viale G, Bria E et al (2016) Discordance in pathology report after central pathology review: implications for breast cancer adjuvant treatment. Breast 30:151–155CrossRef
20.
Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E et al (2002) Real-world performance of HER2 testing—national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(11):852–854CrossRef
21.
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(19):3032–3038CrossRef
22.
Roche PC, Suman VJ, Jenkins RB et al (2002) Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(11):855–857CrossRef
23.
Rosa M, Khazai L (2017) Comparison of HER2 testing among laboratories: our experience with review cases retested at Moffitt Cancer Center in a two-year period. Breast J 24(2):139–147CrossRef
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(25):3846–3852CrossRef
25.
Bianchi S, Caini S, Paglierani M et al (2015) Accuracy and reproducibility of HER2 Status in breast cancer using immunohistochemistry: a quality control study in tuscany evaluating the impact of updated 2013 ASCO/CAP recommendations. Pathol Oncol Res 21(2):477–485CrossRef
26.
Dowsett M, Hanna WM, Kockx M et al (2007) Standardization of HER2 testing: results of an international proficiency-testing ring study. Mod Pathol 20:584CrossRef
27.
Layfield LJ, Goldstein N, Perkinson KR, Proia AD (2003) Interlaboratory variation in results from immunohistochemical assessment of estrogen receptor status. Breast J 9(3):257–259CrossRef
28.
Parker RL, Huntsman DG, Lesack DW et al (2002) Assessment of interlaboratory variation in the immunohistochemical determination of estrogen receptor status using a breast cancer tissue microarray. Am J Clin Pathol 117(5):723–728CrossRef
29.
Regitnig P, Reiner A, Dinges HP et al (2002) Quality assurance for detection of estrogen and progesterone receptors by immunohistochemistry in Austrian pathology laboratories. Virchows Arch 441(4):328–334CrossRef
30.
Rhodes A, Jasani B, Balaton AJ et al (2001) Study of interlaboratory reliability and reproducibility of estrogen and progesterone receptor assays in Europe. Documentation of poor reliability and identification of insufficient microwave antigen retrieval time as a major contributory element of unreliable assays. Am J Clin Pathol 115(1):44–58CrossRef
31.
Fitzgibbons PL, Murphy DA, Dorfman DM et al (2006) Interlaboratory comparison of immunohistochemical testing for HER2: results of the 2004 and 2005 College of American Pathologists HER2 immunohistochemistry tissue microarray survey. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130(10):1440–1445PubMed
32.
Rhodes A, Jasani B, Anderson E et al (2002) Evaluation of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical assay sensitivity and scoring on formalin-fixed and paraffin-processed cell lines and breast tumors: a comparative study involving results from laboratories in 21 countries. Am J Clin Pathol 118(3):408–417CrossRef
33.
Rudiger T, Hofler H, Kreipe HH et al (2002) Quality assurance in immunohistochemistry: results of an interlaboratory trial involving 172 pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol 26(7):873–882CrossRef
34.
von Wasielewski R, Mengel M, Wiese B et al (2002) Tissue array technology for testing interlaboratory and interobserver reproducibility of immunohistochemical estrogen receptor analysis in a large multicenter trial. Am J Clin Pathol 118(5):675–682CrossRef
35.
von Wasielewski R, Hasselmann S, Ruschoff J et al (2008) Proficiency testing of immunohistochemical biomarker assays in breast cancer. Virchows Arch 453(6):537–543CrossRef
36.
Tong LC, Nelson N, Tsourigiannis J, Mulligan AM (2011) The effect of prolonged fixation on the immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 expression in invasive breast cancer: a prospective study. Am J Surg Pathol 35(4):545–552CrossRef
37.
Rakha EA, Pinder SE, Bartlett JM et al (2015) Updated UK Recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 68(2):93–99CrossRef
38.
Lin CY, Carneal EE, Lichtensztajn DY et al Regional variability in percentage of breast cancers reported as positive for HER2 in California: implications of patient demographics on laboratory benchmarks. Am J Clin Pathol 148(3):199–207
39.
Casparie M, Tiebosch ATMG, Burger G et al (2007) Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a Central Role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 29(1):19–24PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Xian Z, Quinones AK, Tozbikian G, Zynger DL (2017) Breast cancer biomarkers before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: does repeat testing impact therapeutic management? Hum Pathol 62:215–221CrossRef
41.
Yang YF, Liao YY, Li LQ et al (2013) Changes in ER, PR and HER2 receptors status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Pathol Res Pract 209(12):797–802CrossRef
42.
Yang L, Zhong X, Pu T et al (2018) Clinical significance and prognostic value of receptor conversion in hormone receptor positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World J Surg Oncol 16(1):51CrossRef
43.
Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752CrossRef
44.
Spiegelhalter DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med 24(8):1185–1202
45.
Huang HJ, Neven P, Drijkoningen M et al (2005) Association between tumour characteristics and HER-2/neu by immunohistochemistry in 1362 women with primary operable breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 58(6):611–616CrossRef
46.
Sullivan PS, Apple SK (2009) Should histologic type be taken into account when considering neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast carcinoma? Breast J 15(2):146–154CrossRef
47.
Tubiana-Hulin M, Stevens D, Lasry S et al (2006) Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lobular and ductal breast carcinomas: a retrospective study on 860 patients from one institution. Ann Oncol 17(8):1228–1233CrossRef
48.
Parise CA, Caggiano V (2014) Breast cancer survival defined by the ER/PR/HER2 subtypes and a surrogate classification according to tumor grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers. J Cancer Epidemiol 2014:469251CrossRef
49.
van Bommel AC, Spronk PE, Peeters MTV et al (2017) Clinical auditing as an instrument for quality improvement in breast cancer care in the Netherlands: the national NABON breast cancer audit. J Surg Oncol 115(3):243–249CrossRef
50.
van Deurzen CH (2016) Predictors of surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery: a large population-based cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 23(Suppl 5):627–633CrossRef
51.
Hynes NE, Stern DF (1994) The biology of erbB-2/neu/HER-2 and its role in cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 1198(2–3):165–184PubMed
52.
Owens MA, Horten BC, Da Silva MM (2004) HER2 amplification ratios by fluorescence in situ hybridization and correlation with immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 6556 breast cancer tissues. Clin Breast Cancer 5(1):63–69CrossRef
53.
Ross JS (2009) Breast cancer biomarkers and HER2 testing after 10 years of anti-HER2 therapy. Dru News Perspect 22(2):93–106CrossRef
54.
55.
Sluijter CE, van Lonkhuijzen LR, van Slooten HJ et al (2016) The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review. Virchows Arch 468(6):639–649CrossRef
56.
Arnedos M, Nerurkar A, Osin P et al (2009) Discordance between core needle biopsy (CNB) and excisional biopsy (EB) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status in early breast cancer (EBC). Ann Oncol 20(12):1948–1952CrossRef
57.
58.
Chen X, Yuan Y, Gu Z, Shen K (2012) Accuracy of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status between core needle and open excision biopsy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 134(3):957–967CrossRef
59.
Dekker TJ, Smit VT, Hooijer GK et al (2013) Reliability of core needle biopsy for determining ER and HER2 status in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 24(4):931–937CrossRef
60.
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 10:534CrossRef
61.
Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA)/ Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation/ NABON Breast Cancer Audit (NBCA) (2018) Factsheet Indicators NABON Breast Cancer Audit (NBCA) 2018, version 2018.3
62.
Groenendijk FH, Jager A, Cardoso F, van Deurzen CHM (2018) A nationwide registry-based cohort study of the MammaPrint genomic risk classifier in invasive breast cancer. Breast 38:125–131CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Hormone- and HER2-receptor assessment in 33,046 breast cancer patients: a nationwide comparison of positivity rates between pathology laboratories in the Netherlands
Authors
Carmen van Dooijeweert
Ivette A. G. Deckers
Inge O. Baas
Elsken van der Wall
Paul J. van Diest
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05180-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2019 Go to the issue

Preclinical study

Anti-tumor and anti-metastasis efficacy of E6201, a MEK1 inhibitor, in preclinical models of triple-negative breast cancer

Clinical trial

Extent of resection and role of adjuvant treatment in resected localized breast angiosarcoma

Brief Report

Corneal features in trastuzumab emtansine treatment: not a rare occurrence

Review

The effect of scalp cooling on CIA-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: a systematic review

Epidemiology

Oophorectomy and risk of contralateral breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Epidemiology

Germline TP53 mutation spectrum in Sudanese premenopausal breast cancer patients: correlations with reproductive factors
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits