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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Virchows Archiv
Published in: Virchows Archiv 1/2022

01-01-2022 | Breast Cancer | Review

Updates on breast biomarkers

Authors: Saleh Najjar, Kimberly H. Allison

Published in: Virchows Archiv | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Recent advancements in breast cancer treatment have ushered in a new era of precision medicine. Novel trials have led to the approval of a growing list of personalized therapies and corresponding biomarkers. These advancements have shifted the pathologist’s practice into a leading role in the management breast cancer. Understanding the complex algorithms and diagnostic modalities used to assess predictive and prognostic biomarkers is central for quality oncology care. ER and HER2 subcategorize breast cancers into treatment groups under which different biomarkers and therapies are indicated, while they also serve as predictive biomarkers for specific targeted treatments. This review will cover the evolution and latest updates of the CAP/ASCO guidelines relevant to these two important biomarkers in breast cancer. Still evolving concepts such as HER2 heterogeneity, HER2 “low,” and HER2-mutated cancers have the potential to continue to change HER2 testing in breast cancers. In addition to ER and HER2, biomarkers used in specific clinical scenarios will be covered. In early-stage ER-positive/HER2-negative disease, multi-gene expression panels (such as OncotypeDX) have emerged as the new standard biomarker when determining if chemotherapy should be added to endocrine therapy. In the more aggressive ER-negative/HER2-positive or triple negative early-stage breast cancers, response to neoadjuvant therapy has proved to be a useful biomarker to help determine if additional therapy should be added for patients with an incomplete response. Ki67 has also recently emerged as a marker that can be used to identify the highest risk ER-positive and HER2-negative cancers if considering adding a cell cycle inhibitor (abemaciclib) to endocrine therapy. Importantly, in the metastatic setting, numerous predictive biomarkers have emerged, including recommendations for germline BRCA mutation testing for all metastatic patients (to determine if PARP inhibitor therapy is an option) and other ER-/HER2-dependent biomarkers such as PD-L1 (for potential immunotherapy in triple negative patients) and PIK3CA mutation status (for potential PI3K inhibitor therapy in ER-positive metastatic patients). Other less common biomarkers of targeted therapy options (e.g., MSI/MMR, TMB, NTRK) as well as comprehensive genomic profiling to identify uncommon targets are also available in the metastatic setting to determine additional treatment options.
Literature
1.
Group, F.D.A.N.I.H.B.W., BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource. 2016.
2.
Pritzker KP (2015) Predictive and prognostic cancer biomarkers revisited. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 15(8):971–4PubMedCrossRef
3.
Clark GM et al (2006) Clinical utility of epidermal growth factor receptor expression for selecting patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer for treatment with erlotinib. J Thorac Oncol 1(8):837–46PubMedCrossRef
4.
Wolff AC 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):3997–4013CrossRefPubMed
5.
Wolff AC 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. Arch Pathol Lab Med 131(1):18–43PubMedCrossRef
6.
Wolff AC et al (2018) HER2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update Summary. J Oncol Pract 14(7):437–441PubMedCrossRef
7.
Allison KH et al (2020) Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 38(12):1346–1366PubMedCrossRef
8.
Allison KH et al (2020) Estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Update. Arch Pathol Lab Med 144(5):545–563PubMedCrossRef
9.
Hammond ME 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):2784–95PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Hammond ME 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 (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(7):e48-72PubMedCrossRef
11.
Davies C 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):771–84PubMedCrossRef
12.
Balduzzi A et al (2014) Survival outcomes in breast cancer patients with low estrogen/progesterone receptor expression. Clin Breast Cancer 14(4):258–64PubMedCrossRef
13.
Chen T et al (2018) Borderline ER-positive primary breast cancer gains no significant survival benefit from endocrine therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 18(1):1–8PubMedCrossRef
14.
Deyarmin B et al (2013) Effect of ASCO/CAP guidelines for determining ER status on molecular subtype. Ann Surg Oncol 20(1):87–93PubMedCrossRef
15.
Gloyeske NC, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R (2014) Low ER+ breast cancer: is this a distinct group? Am J Clin Pathol 141(5):697–701PubMedCrossRef
16.
Honma N et al (2014) Proportion of estrogen or progesterone receptor expressing cells in breast cancers and response to endocrine therapy. Breast 23(6):754–62PubMedCrossRef
17.
Iwamoto T 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(7):729–34PubMedCrossRef
18.
Raghav KP et al (2012) Impact of low estrogen/progesterone receptor expression on survival outcomes in breast cancers previously classified as triple negative breast cancers. Cancer 118(6):1498–506PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Allred DC et al (2012) Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on NSABP protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol 30(12):1268–73PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Cuzick J et al (2011) Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol 12(1):21–9PubMedCrossRef
22.
DeCensi A et al (2019) Randomized placebo controlled trial of low-dose tamoxifen to prevent local and contralateral recurrence in breast intraepithelial neoplasia. J Clin Oncol 37(19):1629–1637PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Houghton J et al (2003) Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 362(9378):95–102PubMedCrossRef
24.
Hwang KT et al (2018) Tamoxifen therapy improves overall survival in luminal A subtype of ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on nationwide Korean Breast Cancer Registry database. Breast Cancer Res Treat 169(2):311–322PubMedCrossRef
25.
Press MF et al (1997) HER-2/neu gene amplification characterized by fluorescence in situ hybridization: poor prognosis in node-negative breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 15(8):2894–904PubMedCrossRef
26.
Press MF et al (1993) Her-2/neu expression in node-negative breast cancer: direct tissue quantitation by computerized image analysis and association of overexpression with increased risk of recurrent disease. Cancer Res 53(20):4960–70PubMed
27.
Yamauchi H, Stearns V, Hayes DF (2001) When is a tumor marker ready for prime time? a case study of c-erbB-2 as a predictive factor in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(8):2334–56PubMedCrossRef
28.
Wolff AC et al (2018) Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. J Clin Oncol 36(20):2105–2122PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
31.
Rakha EA et al (2015) Updated UK Recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 68(2):93–9PubMedCrossRef
32.
Walker RA et al (2008) HER2 testing in the UK: further update to recommendations. J Clin Pathol 61(7):818–24PubMedCrossRef
33.
Grimm, E.V., et al., HER2 testing: insights from pathologists' perspective on technically challenging HER2 FISH cases. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol, 2021.
34.
Hou Y, Nitta H, Li Z (2017) HER2 gene protein assay is useful to determine HER2 status and evaluate HER2 heterogeneity in HER2 equivocal breast cancer. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 147(1):89–95PubMed
35.
Allison KH, Dintzis SM, Schmidt RA (2011) Frequency of HER2 heterogeneity by fluorescence in situ hybridization according to CAP expert panel recommendations: time for a new look at how to report heterogeneity. Am J Clin Pathol 136(6):864–71PubMedCrossRef
36.
Bethune GC, Mullen JB, Chang MC (2013) HER2 testing of multifocal invasive breast carcinoma: how many blocks are enough? American Journal of Clinical Pathology 140(4):588–592PubMedCrossRef
37.
Grinda T et al (2021) Phenotypic discordance between primary and metastatic breast cancer in the large-scale real-life multicenter French ESME cohort. npj Breast Cancer 7(1):41PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Hanna WM et al (2014) HER2 in situ hybridization in breast cancer: clinical implications of polysomy 17 and genetic heterogeneity. Mod Pathol 27(1):4–18PubMedCrossRef
39.
Marchiò C et al (2009) Does chromosome 17 centromere copy number predict polysomy in breast cancer? A fluorescence in situ hybridization and microarray-based CGH analysis. J Pathol 219(1):16–24PubMedCrossRef
40.
Moelans CB, de Weger RA, van Diest PJ (2010) Absence of chromosome 17 polysomy in breast cancer: analysis by CEP17 chromogenic in situ hybridization and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120(1):1–7PubMedCrossRef
41.
Troxell ML et al (2006) Evaluation of Her-2/neu status in carcinomas with amplified chromosome 17 centromere locus. Am J Clin Pathol 126(5):709–16PubMedCrossRef
42.
Tse CH et al (2011) Determining true HER2 gene status in breast cancers with polysomy by using alternative chromosome 17 reference genes: implications for anti-HER2 targeted therapy. J Clin Oncol 29(31):4168–74PubMedCrossRef
43.
Yeh IT et al (2009) Clinical validation of an array CGH test for HER2 status in breast cancer reveals that polysomy 17 is a rare event. Mod Pathol 22(9):1169–75PubMedCrossRef
44.
Allison KH (2021) Prognostic and predictive parameters in breast pathology: a pathologist’s primer. Mod Pathol 34(Suppl 1):94–106PubMedCrossRef
45.
Ballard M et al (2017) “Non-classical” HER2 FISH results in breast cancer: a multi-institutional study. Mod Pathol 30(2):227–235PubMedCrossRef
46.
Press MF et al (2016) Assessing the New American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guidelines for HER2 Testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization: experience of an academic consultation practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med 140(11):1250–1258PubMedCrossRef
47.
Stoss OC et al (2015) Impact of updated HER2 testing guidelines in breast cancer–re-evaluation of HERA trial fluorescence in situ hybridization data. Mod Pathol 28(12):1528–34PubMedCrossRef
48.
Gordian-Arroyo AM, Zynger DL, Tozbikian GH (2019) Impact of the 2018 ASCO/CAP HER2 guideline focused update. Am J Clin Pathol 152(1):17–26PubMedCrossRef
49.
Kim MC et al (2020) Impact of the updated guidelines on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer. J Breast Cancer 23(5):484–497PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Press MF et al (2016) HER2 gene amplification testing by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH): comparison of the ASCO-College of American Pathologists Guidelines with FISH scores used for enrollment in Breast Cancer International Research Group Clinical Trials. J Clin Oncol 34(29):3518–3528PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Rakha EA et al (2021) Retrospective observational study of HER2 immunohistochemistry in borderline breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, with an emphasis on Group 2 (HER2/CEP17 ratio ≥2.0, HER2 copy number <4.0 signals/cell) cases. Br J Cancer 124(11):1836–1842PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Farshid G et al (2019) ASCO/CAP 2018 breast cancer HER2 testing guidelines: summary of pertinent recommendations for practice in Australia. Pathology 51(4):345–348PubMedCrossRef
53.
Bose R et al (2013) Activating HER2 mutations in HER2 gene amplification negative breast cancer. Cancer Discov 3(2):224–37PubMedCrossRef
54.
Rosa-Rosa, J.M., et al., High frequency of ERBB2 activating mutations in invasive lobular breast carcinoma with pleomorphic features. Cancers (Basel), 2019. 11(1).
55.
Ross JS et al (2016) Nonamplification ERBB2 genomic alterations in 5605 cases of recurrent and metastatic breast cancer: an emerging opportunity for anti-HER2 targeted therapies. Cancer 122(17):2654–62PubMedCrossRef
56.
Piccart M et al (2021) 70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age. Lancet Oncol 22(4):476–488PubMedCrossRef
57.
Sestak I et al (2020) Prognostic value of EndoPredict in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 26(17):4682–4687PubMedCrossRef
58.
Noordhoek I et al (2021) Breast cancer index predicts extended endocrine benefit to individualize selection of patients with HR(+) early-stage breast cancer for 10 years of endocrine therapy. Clin Cancer Res 27(1):311–319PubMedCrossRef
59.
Harbeck, N., et al., Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE Study. Ann Oncol, 2021.
60.
Cortazar P et al (2014) Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384(9938):164–72PubMedCrossRef
61.
von Minckwitz G et al (2019) Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 380(7):617–628CrossRef
62.
Masuda N et al (2017) Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 376(22):2147–2159PubMedCrossRef
63.
Symmans WF et al (2017) Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol 35(10):1049–1060PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
Robson M et al (2017) Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med 377(6):523–533PubMedCrossRef
65.
Litton JK et al (2018) Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med 379(8):753–763PubMedCrossRef
66.
Tutt, A.N.J., et al., Adjuvant olaparib for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 2021.
67.
Andre F et al (2019) Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 380(20):1929–1940PubMedCrossRef
68.
Schmid P et al (2018) Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 379(22):2108–2121CrossRefPubMed
69.
Cortes J et al (2020) Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet 396(10265):1817–1828PubMedCrossRef
70.
71.
Metadata
Title
Updates on breast biomarkers
Authors
Saleh Najjar
Kimberly H. Allison
Publication date
01-01-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Virchows Archiv / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0945-6317
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2307
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-022-03267-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Virchows Archiv 1/2022 Go to the issue

Review

Male breast cancer: an update

Review

Is Real-Time Microscopy on the Horizon? A Brief Review of the Potential Future Directions in Clinical Breast Tumor Microscopy Implementation

Review

Papillary lesions of the breast

Review and Perspectives

Grading of invasive breast carcinoma: the way forward

Review

Artificial intelligence applied to breast pathology

Review

Incorporation of TILs in daily breast cancer care: how much evidence can we bear?