Cargando…

Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND: The importance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as a prognostic and predictive marker in invasive breast cancer is well established. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential to determine optimal treatment options. METHODS: Breast cancer tumor tissue samples from...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaufman, Peter A, Bloom, Kenneth J, Burris, Howard, Gralow, Julie R, Mayer, Musa, Pegram, Mark, Rugo, Hope S, Swain, Sandra M, Yardley, Denise A, Chau, Miu, Lalla, Deepa, Yoo, Bongin, Brammer, Melissa G, Vogel, Charles L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232097/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24930388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28710
_version_ 1782344526608728064
author Kaufman, Peter A
Bloom, Kenneth J
Burris, Howard
Gralow, Julie R
Mayer, Musa
Pegram, Mark
Rugo, Hope S
Swain, Sandra M
Yardley, Denise A
Chau, Miu
Lalla, Deepa
Yoo, Bongin
Brammer, Melissa G
Vogel, Charles L
author_facet Kaufman, Peter A
Bloom, Kenneth J
Burris, Howard
Gralow, Julie R
Mayer, Musa
Pegram, Mark
Rugo, Hope S
Swain, Sandra M
Yardley, Denise A
Chau, Miu
Lalla, Deepa
Yoo, Bongin
Brammer, Melissa G
Vogel, Charles L
author_sort Kaufman, Peter A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The importance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as a prognostic and predictive marker in invasive breast cancer is well established. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential to determine optimal treatment options. METHODS: Breast cancer tumor tissue samples from the VIRGO observational cohort tissue substudy that were locally HER2-negative were retested centrally with both US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays, using FDA-approved assay cutoffs; results were compared. RESULTS: Of the 552 unique patient samples centrally retested with local HER2-negative results recorded, tumor samples from 22 (4.0%) patients were determined to be HER2-positive (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5%-5.7%). Of these, 18 had been tested locally by only one testing methodology; 15 of 18 were HER2-positive after the central retesting, based on the testing methodology not performed locally. Compared with the 530 patients with centrally confirmed HER2-negative tumors, the 22 patients with centrally determined HER2-positive tumors were younger (median age 56.5 versus 60.0 years) and more likely to have ER/PR-negative tumors (27.3% versus 22.3%). These patients also had shorter median progression-free survival (6.4 months [95% CI = 3.8-15.9 months] versus 9.1 months [95% CI = 8.3-10.3 months]) and overall survival (25.9 months [95% CI = 13.8-not estimable] versus 27.9 months [95% CI = 25.0-32.9 months]). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the limitations of employing just one HER2 testing methodology in current clinical practice. It identifies a cohort of patients who did not receive potentially efficacious therapy because their tumor HER2-positivity was not determined by the test initially used. Because of inherent limitations in testing methodologies, it is inadvisable to rely on a single test to rule out potential benefit from HER2-targeted therapy. Cancer 2014;120:2657–2664.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4232097
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42320972014-12-15 Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer Kaufman, Peter A Bloom, Kenneth J Burris, Howard Gralow, Julie R Mayer, Musa Pegram, Mark Rugo, Hope S Swain, Sandra M Yardley, Denise A Chau, Miu Lalla, Deepa Yoo, Bongin Brammer, Melissa G Vogel, Charles L Cancer Original Articles BACKGROUND: The importance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as a prognostic and predictive marker in invasive breast cancer is well established. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential to determine optimal treatment options. METHODS: Breast cancer tumor tissue samples from the VIRGO observational cohort tissue substudy that were locally HER2-negative were retested centrally with both US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays, using FDA-approved assay cutoffs; results were compared. RESULTS: Of the 552 unique patient samples centrally retested with local HER2-negative results recorded, tumor samples from 22 (4.0%) patients were determined to be HER2-positive (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5%-5.7%). Of these, 18 had been tested locally by only one testing methodology; 15 of 18 were HER2-positive after the central retesting, based on the testing methodology not performed locally. Compared with the 530 patients with centrally confirmed HER2-negative tumors, the 22 patients with centrally determined HER2-positive tumors were younger (median age 56.5 versus 60.0 years) and more likely to have ER/PR-negative tumors (27.3% versus 22.3%). These patients also had shorter median progression-free survival (6.4 months [95% CI = 3.8-15.9 months] versus 9.1 months [95% CI = 8.3-10.3 months]) and overall survival (25.9 months [95% CI = 13.8-not estimable] versus 27.9 months [95% CI = 25.0-32.9 months]). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the limitations of employing just one HER2 testing methodology in current clinical practice. It identifies a cohort of patients who did not receive potentially efficacious therapy because their tumor HER2-positivity was not determined by the test initially used. Because of inherent limitations in testing methodologies, it is inadvisable to rely on a single test to rule out potential benefit from HER2-targeted therapy. Cancer 2014;120:2657–2664. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2014-09-01 2014-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4232097/ /pubmed/24930388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28710 Text en © 2014 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kaufman, Peter A
Bloom, Kenneth J
Burris, Howard
Gralow, Julie R
Mayer, Musa
Pegram, Mark
Rugo, Hope S
Swain, Sandra M
Yardley, Denise A
Chau, Miu
Lalla, Deepa
Yoo, Bongin
Brammer, Melissa G
Vogel, Charles L
Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer
title Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer
title_full Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer
title_fullStr Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer
title_short Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer
title_sort assessing the discordance rate between local and central her2 testing in women with locally determined her2-negative breast cancer
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232097/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24930388
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28710
work_keys_str_mv AT kaufmanpetera assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT bloomkennethj assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT burrishoward assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT gralowjulier assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT mayermusa assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT pegrammark assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT rugohopes assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT swainsandram assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT yardleydenisea assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT chaumiu assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT lalladeepa assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT yoobongin assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT brammermelissag assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer
AT vogelcharlesl assessingthediscordanceratebetweenlocalandcentralher2testinginwomenwithlocallydeterminedher2negativebreastcancer