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

Evaluation of Serum MicroRNAs (miR-9-5p, miR-17-5p, and miR-148a-3p) as Potential Biomarkers of Breast Cancer

Background

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play important roles in the initiation and progression of cancers. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the use of serum miRNA biomarkers in the early diagnosis of breast cancer.

Methods

The expression levels of miR-9-5p, miR-17-5p, and miR-148a-3p were analyzed by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in 49 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and 49 healthy controls. The associations between miR-9-5p, miR-17-5p, and miR-148a-3p levels and clinicopathological parameters were also analyzed. Regression analysis and sensitivity and specificity analyses were used to determine the diagnostic efficacy of the miRNAs.

Results

Serum levels of miR-9-5p and miR-148a-3p were significantly higher in breast cancer patients than in healthy controls (both P < 0.05), but miR-17-5p levels were not different between the two groups (P = 0.996). Serum miR-9-5p levels were markedly higher in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- (HER2-) positive breast cancer than in those with HER2-negative breast cancer (P = 0.049). Serum levels of miR-9-5p and miR-148a-3p were positively correlated with the presence of breast cancer, and both miRNAs had high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Conclusions

These findings provide evidence that serum miR-9-5p and miR-148a-3p levels may be used as noninvasive biological markers for the clinical diagnosis of breast cancer.

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Update

PURPOSE.—

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.

METHODS.—

A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.

RECOMMENDATIONS.—

The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Association between low estrogen receptor positive breast cancer and staining performance

Estrogen receptor (ER) expression in breast carcinomas, determined by immunohistochemistry, indicates statistically significant benefit to endocrine therapy in patients with tumors expressing ER in ≥1% of tumor cells. Rare cases with low ER expression (1-10%) lead to the dilemma of treating these tumors as ER positive or negative. We hypothesize that low ER positive result from poor staining performance and that we may detect this artefact by assessing the average dynamic range of normal ducts adjacent to low ER positive tumors. Using quantitative tools, we compare the dynamic range of normal background ER expression in patients with low (1-10%) ER tumors to dynamic range of ER expression in normal epithelium from control patient populations, to determine if low ER cases are accompanied by decreased dynamic range. Low ER cases were infrequent (1% of invasive breast carcinomas). Twenty-one cases with low ER staining and two control cohorts, including a tissue microarray (TMA) of 10 benign breast sections and a group of 34 control breast carcinomas (reported as ER negative or >10% ER positive) with normal background epithelium, were digitally scanned. QuPath was utilized to quantify ER staining for each cell as the mean optical density of nuclear DAB staining. The dynamic range of ER expression in normal epithelium surrounding low ER tumors was significantly lower (range 2-240, median 16.5) than that of the benign epithelium in the control tumors (range 3-475, median 30.8; p < 0.001) and benign TMA sections (range 38-212, median 114; p < 0.001) suggesting inconsistent stainer performance.

Exosomes: A Promising Avenue for the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Currently, despite the advances in individualized treatment, breast cancer still remains the deadliest form of cancer in women. Diagnostic, prognostic, and therapy-predictive methods are mainly based on the evaluation of tumor tissue samples and are aimed to improve the overall therapeutic level. Therefore, the exploration of a series of circulating biomarkers, which serve as the information source of tumors and could be obtained by peripheral blood samples, represents a high field of interest. Apart from classical biomarkers, exosomes, which are nanovesicles, are emerging as an accessible and efficient source of cell information. The purpose of this review is to summarize the peculiarities of the presently available breast cancer exosomal biomarkers; the review also provides the prediction of a multitude of potential target genes of exosomal microRNAs using 4 databases.

Concordance between Immunohistochemistry and Microarray Gene Expression Profiling for Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER2 Receptor Statuses in Breast Cancer Patients in Lebanon

Introduction

Accurate evaluation of estrogen and progesterone receptors and HER2 is critical when diagnosing invasive breast cancer for optimal treatment. The current evaluation method is via immunohistochemistry (IHC). In this paper, we compared results of ER, PR, and HER2 from microarray gene expression to IHC in 81 fresh breast cancer specimens.

Methods

Gene expression profiling was performed using the GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 arrays (Affymetrix Inc). Immunohistochemical staining for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status was performed using standard methods at a CAP-accredited pathology laboratory. Concordance rates, agreement measures, and kappa scores were calculated for both methods.

Results

For ER, Kappa score was 0.918 (95% CI, 0.77.3-1.000) and concordance rate was 97.5% (95% CI, 91.4%-99.7%). For PR, Kappa score was 0.652 (95% CI, 0.405-0.849) and concordance rate was 86.4% (95% CI, 77%-93%). For HER2, Kappa score was 0.709 (95% CI, 0.428-0.916) and concordance rate was 97.5% (95% CI, 91.4%-99.7%).

Conclusion

Our results are in line with the available evidence with the concordance rate being the lowest for the progesterone receptor. In general, microarray gene expression and IHC proved to have high concordance rates. Several factors can increase the discordance rate such as differences in sample processing.

Comparison of risk classification between EndoPredict and MammaPrint in ER-positive/HER2-negative primary invasive breast cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the concordance in risk classification between the EndoPredict and the MammaPrint scores obtained for the same cancer samples on 40 estrogen-receptor positive/HER2-negative breast carcinomas.

METHODS

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded invasive breast carcinoma tissues that were previously analyzed with MammaPrint as part of routine care of the patients, and were classified as high-risk (20 patients) and low-risk (20 patients), were selected to be analyzed by the EndoPredict assay, a second generation gene expression test that combines expression of 8 genes (EP score) with two clinicopathological variables (tumor size and nodal status, EPclin score).

RESULTS

The EP score classified 15 patients as low-risk and 25 patients as high-risk. EPclin re-classified 5 of the 25 EP high-risk patients into low-risk, resulting in a total of 20 high-risk and 20 low-risk tumors. EP score and MammaPrint score were significantly correlated (p = 0.008). Twelve of 20 samples classified as low-risk by MammaPrint were also low-risk by EP score (60%). 17 of 20 MammaPrint high-risk tumors were also high-risk by EP score. The overall concordance between EP score and MammaPrint was 72.5% (κ = 0.45, (95% CI, 0.182 to 0.718)). EPclin score also correlated with MammaPrint results (p = 0.004). Discrepancies between both tests occurred in 10 cases: 5 MammaPrint low-risk patients were classified as EPclin high-risk and 5 high-risk MammaPrint were classified as low-risk by EPclin and overall concordance of 75% (κ = 0.5, (95% CI, 0.232 to 0.768)).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates a limited concordance between MammaPrint and EndoPredict. Differences in results could be explained by the inclusion of different gene sets in each platform, the use of different methodology, and the inclusion of clinicopathological parameters, such as tumor size and nodal status, in the EndoPredict test.

Multimodal Assessment of Estrogen Receptor mRNA Profiles to Quantify Estrogen Pathway Activity in Breast Tumors

BACKGROUND

Molecular markers have transformed our understanding of the heterogeneity of breast cancer and have allowed the identification of genomic profiles of estrogen receptor (ER)-α signaling. However, our understanding of the transcriptional profiles of ER signaling remains inadequate. Therefore, we sought to identify the genomic indicators of ER pathway activity that could supplement traditional immunohistochemical (IHC) assessments of ER status to better understand ER signaling in the breast tumors of individual patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reduced ESR1 (gene encoding the ER-α protein) mRNA levels using small interfering RNA in ER⁺ MCF7 breast cancer cells and assayed for transcriptional changes using Affymetrix HG U133 Plus 2.0 arrays. We also compared 1034 ER⁺ and ER^- breast tumors from publicly available microarray data. The principal components of ER activity generated from these analyses and from other published estrogen signatures were compared with ESR1 expression, ER-α IHC, and patient survival.

RESULTS

Genes differentially expressed in both analyses were associated with ER-α IHC and ESR1 mRNA expression. They were also significantly enriched for estrogen-driven molecular pathways associated with ESR1, cyclin D1 (CCND1), MYC (v-myc avian myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog), and NFKB (nuclear factor kappa B). Despite their differing constituent genes, the principal components generated from these new analyses and from previously published ER-associated gene lists were all associated with each other and with the survival of patients with breast cancer treated with endocrine therapies.

CONCLUSION

A biomarker of ER-α pathway activity, generated using ESR1-responsive mRNAs in MCF7 cells, when used alongside ER-α IHC and ESR1 mRNA expression, could provide a method for further stratification of patients and add insight into ER pathway activity in these patients.