Automated measurement of estrogen receptor in breast cancer: a comparison of fluorescent and chromogenic methods of measurement

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.

Introduction to digital pathology and computer-aided pathology

Digital pathology (DP) is no longer an unfamiliar term for pathologists, but it is still difficult for many pathologists to understand the engineering and mathematics concepts involved in DP. Computer-aided pathology (CAP) aids pathologists in diagnosis. However, some consider CAP a threat to the existence of pathologists and are skeptical of its clinical utility. Implementation of DP is very burdensome for pathologists because technical factors, impact on workflow, and information technology infrastructure must be considered. In this paper, various terms related to DP and computer-aided pathologic diagnosis are defined, current applications of DP are discussed, and various issues related to implementation of DP are outlined. The development of computer-aided pathologic diagnostic tools and their limitations are also discussed.

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.

In Vivo Quantitation of Estrogen Receptor β Subtype Expression in Ovarian Surface Epithelium Using Immunofluorescence Profiling and Confocal Microscopy

Immunohistochemistry using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue, chromogen label, and light microscopy has traditionally been used to semiquantify estrogen receptor (ER) to guide diagnosis and management of breast cancer. Quantitation of ER for this purpose currently only assesses levels of the ER-alpha subtype. Considerable variability in results reported has been due to protocol and fixation variability, intraobserver and interobserver variability, and different scoring systems and thresholds for scoring ER positivity. Results can also vary with low expression levels of ER. ER-beta expression is reduced in breast and ovarian cancers and requires quantitation.Herein we describe a novel approach to quantifying ERβ using older mouse ovarian surface epithelium, where ERβ is expressed at lower levels than ERα and is therefore harder to detect. We use an antibody highly specific to the ERβ1 isoform, together with immunofluorescence, confocal microscopy, and imaging and statistical software to achieve clear, reproducible, and unbiased quantitation of ERβ.

High CD90 (THY-1) expression positively correlates with cell transformation and worse prognosis in basal-like breast cancer tumors

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women, with the basal-like triple negative (TNBC) being the most agressive one, displaying the poorest prognosis within the ductal carcinoma subtype. Due to the lack of adequate molecular targets, the diagnosis and treatment of patients with the TNBC phenotype has been a great challenge. In a previous work, we identified CD90/Thy-1 as being highly expressed in the aggressive high malignancy grade Hs578T basal-like breast tumor cell line, pointing to this molecule as a promising breast tumor marker, which should be further investigated. Here, CD90 expression was analyzed in human breast cancer samples and its functional role was investigated to better assess the oncogenic nature of CD90 in mammary cells. Quantification of CD90 expression in human breast cancer samples, by tissue microarray, showed that high CD90 positivity correlates with metastasis and poor patient survival in the basal-like subtype. The functional genetic approach, by overexpression in the CD90 cDNA in a basal-like normal mammary cell line (MCF10A) and knockdown in a highly malignant cell line (Hs578T), allowed us to demonstrate that CD90 is involved with several cellular processes that lead to malignant transformation, such as: morphological change, increased cell proliferation, invasiveness, metastasis and activation of the EGFR pathway. Therefore, our results reveal that CD90 is involved with malignant transformation in breast cancer cell lines and is correlated with metastasis and poor patient survival in the basal-like subtype, being considered as a promising new breast cancer target.

HMGA1 expression levels are elevated in pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia cells in the Ptf1a-Cre; LSL-KrasG12D transgenic mouse model of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is currently the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and it is predicted to become the second by the year 2030. High-mobility group A1 protein (HMGA1) is an oncogenic transcription factor, localised and active in cell nuclei, that is linked to tumour progression in many human cancers, including pancreatic cancer. Overexpression of HMGA1 renders cancer cells resistant to chemotherapy. Although the Ptf1a-Cre; LSL-KrasG12D transgenic mouse is perhaps the most widely utilised animal model for human pancreatic cancer, expression levels of HMGA1 in pancreata from this mouse model have not been characterised.

METHODS

Quantitative immunohistochemical analysis was used to determine nuclear HMGA1 levels in pancreatic tissue sections from Ptf1a-Cre; LSL-KrasG12D mice aged 5, 11, and 15 months. The H Score method was used for quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

The HMGA1 levels were significantly elevated in pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) epithelia compared with untransformed acinar tissues or fibroinflammatory stroma.

CONCLUSIONS

The PanINs have long been regarded as precancerous precursors to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Significantly elevated HMGA1 levels observed in the nuclei of PanINs in Ptf1a-Cre; LSL-KrasG12D mice validate this animal model for investigating the role that HMGA1 plays in cancer progression and testing therapeutic approaches targeting HMGA1 in human cancers.

PD-L1 Expression in Melanoma: A Quantitative Immunohistochemical Antibody Comparison

Purpose: PD-L1 expression in the pretreatment tumor microenvironment enriches for response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively compare the performance of five monoclonal anti-PD-L1 antibodies used in recent landmark publications.Experimental Design: PD-L1 IHC was performed on 34 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded archival melanoma samples using the 5H1, SP142, 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 clones. The percentage of total cells (including melanocytes and immune cells) demonstrating cell surface PD-L1 staining, as well as intensity measurements/H-scores, were assessed for each melanoma specimen using a computer-assisted platform. Staining properties were compared between antibodies.Results: Strong correlations were observed between the percentage of PD-L1(+) cells across all clones studied (R² = 0.81-0.96). When present, discordant results were attributable to geographic heterogeneity of the melanoma tissue section rather than differences in PD-L1 antibody staining characteristics. PD-L1 intensity/H-scores strongly correlated with percentage of PD-L1(+) cells (R² > 0.78, all clones).Conclusions: The 5H1, SP142, 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 clones all demonstrated similar performance characteristics when used in a standardized IHC assay on melanoma specimens. Reported differences in PD-L1 IHC assays using these antibodies are thus most likely due to assay characteristics beyond the antibody itself. Our findings also argue against the inclusion of an intensity/H-score in chromogenic PD-L1 IHC assays. Clin Cancer Res; 23(16); 4938-44. ©2017 AACR.