HER2 heterogeneity in gastric/gastroesophageal cancers: From benchside to practice

HER2 is overexpressed in approximately 10%-20% of gastric and gastroesophageal junction carcinomas. In these types of cancer, accurate assessment of HER2 status is mandatory, for selecting patients who may benefit from targeted therapies with anti-HER2 drugs such as Trastuzumab. This manuscript focuses on HER2 in gastric carcinogenesis, on optimal evaluation of HER2 and on the possible causes which may contribute to inaccurate HER2 evaluation. Similarly to breast cancer HER2 evaluation, standardization of HER2 testing in gastric cancer is necessary in diagnostic practice. The three principle aspects which require consideration are: (1) the choice of sample with regards to cancer morphology - intestinal vs diffuse areas; (2) the choice of scoring criteria - use of HER2 scoring criteria specific for gastric cancer; and (3) the choice of HER2 evaluation methods - use of an algorithm in which both immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization play a role. Problematic issues include: (1) pre-analytic variables with particular emphasis on fixation; (2) recommended methodology for HER2 assessment (immunohistochemistry vs in situ hybridization); (3) HER2 heterogeneity both within the primary tumor and between primary tumor and metastases; (4) reliability of biopsies in HER 2 evaluation; and (5) quantity of sample (FFPE blocks from surgical specimens or endoscopic biopsies) necessary for an adequate assessment.

Minimum biopsy set for HER2 evaluation in gastric and gastro-esophageal junction cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The HER2 status of small endoscopic biopsies is important for predicting the eligibility of patients with metastatic HER2-positive gastric cancer or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer for anti-HER2 therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The aim of this study was to identify the minimum biopsy set required to evaluate the HER2 status with confidence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 103 consecutive patients with resected gastric cancer or GEJ cancer were retrospectively selected; 2 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples of each surgical specimen and all paired endoscopic biopsies were analyzed for HER2 status with both immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) methods. A total of 10 virtual biopsies were constructed by selecting areas 2.6 mm in diameter on the luminal side of digitalized slides obtained from the surgical specimens. The results of evaluating HER2 status in virtual biopsies, slides containing complete surgical specimens, and endoscopic biopsies were compared. The resulting minimum biopsy set was applied to the endoscopic biopsy series for validation.

RESULTS

A biopsy set containing a minimum of 5 samples was identified as the most accurate in predicting HER2 status (sensitivity, 92 %; specificity, 97 %). In only 3 of the 103 cases (2.9 %) did a comparison of the HER2 evaluation of virtual biopsies and that of entire slides show inconsistent results. Overall agreement between the endoscopic biopsies and surgical samples for HER2 IHC status increased from 78.4 % to 92.3 % when biopsy sets containing 4 or fewer samples were compared with biopsy sets containing 5 or more samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the recommendations suggest that 8 to 10 biopsies are necessary, the results show that a minimum set of 5 biopsies may be sufficient for reliable HER2 assessment in gastric cancer and GEJ cancer. However, endoscopists should be aware that a smaller sample size may be less accurate in selecting patients eligible for anti-HER2 therapy.

The Reliability of Endoscopic Biopsies in Assessing HER2 Status in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Study Comparing Biopsies with Surgical Samples

AIM

The aim of this study is to validate the accuracy of HER2 assessment on biopsies by comparing matched biopsy/surgical material from the same patients.

METHODS

HER2 status was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in 103 cases of gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers in coupled biopsy and surgical material.

RESULT

Complete concordance between IHC and FISH results on biopsy versus surgical samples was noted in 80% and 95% of cases, respectively. At comprehensive comparison, including IHC and FISH data on biopsy and surgical samples, 89% of biopsies were predictive of HER2 status in surgical samples, whereas 11% showed variable inconsistencies. The majority of these (10 of 12 cases) showed IHC score 0/1+ on biopsy but were all IHC positive and amplified at surgery; in particular, three (3 of 35; 8.5%) IHC score 0 and four (4 of 16; 25%) IHC score 1+ cases were FISH amplified on biopsy material also, whereas the remaining three cases were FISH non-amplified on biopsy. The percentage of cases, which were FISH amplified with IHC score 1+ or 2+ on biopsies, were similar (25% and 33%, respectively) and they also shared a similar grade of amplification. These data suggest that both IHC score 1+ and 2+ on biopsy material represent "equivocal cases" that may merit further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive value of HER2 IHC in biopsies is high. FISH analysis should be considered for IHC score 2+ and 1+ biopsy cases. Approximately 8% of cases will not be accurately predicted by biopsy evaluation.

Counting mitoses in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs): variable practices in the real-world setting and their clinical implications

Mitotic count (MC) is an important prognostic indicator in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Though MC evaluation was initially proposed in 50 HPFs, recent international guidelines recommend that MC be performed on 5 mm2 because HPFs may have different areas depending on the ocular field number (FN) of the utilized light microscope. Performing MC on different areas leads to a non-standardized evaluation and erroneous risk stratification. The aim of the study was to audit real-life MC practices with special emphasis on possible risk stratification errors. A survey was administered to Italian pathologists to evaluate the following: method used for MC (5 mm2 versus 50 HPF); FN of the light microscope; prognostic scheme for risk stratification. Based on the results of the survey, 100 GISTs (25/risk class using Miettinen prognostic scheme) were retrieved and MC performed using 5 mm2 versus the corresponding mm2 area sizes of 50 HPFs with variable FNs (18, 20, 22). The survey demonstrated that the majority of pathologists (64.5%) use 50 HPFs with various FNs leading to excessive area size. The most frequently used prognostic scheme is that by Miettinen. Using this prognostic scheme and counting mitoses in 5 mm2 versus 50 HPFs with FNs 18, 20 and 22, a change in risk class was identified ranging from 10 to 41%, depending on FN. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that MC is still frequently performed on 50 HPF, with area sizes exceeding the specified 5 mm2 by far.