Modeling Canadian Quality Control Test Program for Steroid Hormone Receptors in Breast Cancer: Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Is Oncotype DX testing informative for breast cancers with low ER expression? A retrospective review from a biomarker testing referral center

PURPOSE

It remains unclear whether patients with HER2-negative, low-estrogen receptor (ER-low)-positive early breast cancer (BC) benefit from Oncotype DX® (ODX) testing.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of cases referred for ODX testing over a seven-year period from a breast biomarker testing referral center (n = 854). For each case, we recorded the ODX Recurrence Score (RS) along with percentage of ER nuclear positivity and staining intensity on immunohistochemistry. Our criteria for ER-low was defined as ≤10% cells with nuclear positivity and/or weak intensity of staining. Slides from all ER-low cases were reviewed and the reported ODX ER gene scores were recorded. We randomly selected a comparator group of 56 patients with ER > 10% positivity and non-weak staining intensity (ER-high).

RESULTS

We identified 27 cases (3.2%) that met our criteria for ER-low. Of these, 92.6% had a high RS (>25), and 7.4% had a RS of 25. All cases with ≤10% ER nuclear positivity had a high RS. Most ER-low cases (85.2%) had ODX quantitative ER gene scores in the negative range, whereas all (100%) ER-high cases had positive ER gene scores.

CONCLUSION

ODX does not appear to add significant additional information to inform treatment decisions for most patients with ER-low BC. Incorporating weak ER staining intensity in addition to low percentage of nuclear positivity identifies about twice as many ER-low patients, although with reduced specificity for high RS. Our study supports the contention that most ER-low early BC should be regarded similarly to ER-negative BC.

Assessing the impact of the phase-out measures during COVID-19 pandemic, using regression models: a longitudinal observational study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of different phase-out measures approved by several European governments.

DESIGN

This is a longitudinal observational study.

SETTINGS

European countries, from 20 February 2020 to 11 May 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

All European countries that implemented at least one phase-out measure dictated by governments, during the follow-up period.

MAIN OUTCOME

New COVID-19 cases, analysed as daily rate by countries.

METHODS

We compared the observed versus the predicted rates of new confirmed cases, hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and deaths by regions in Spain, to assess the accuracy of the proposed generalised estimating equations and hurdle models. Based on these models, we defined and calculated two indices to quantify the impact of the phase-out measures approved in several European countries.

RESULTS

After 2-month follow-up, we confirmed the good performance of these models for the prediction of the incidence of new confirmed cases, hospital admission, ICU admission and death in a 7-day window. We found that certain phase-out measures implemented in Italy, Spain and Denmark showed moderate impact in daily new confirmed cases. Due to these different phase-out measures, in Italy, the estimated increment of new confirmed cases per 100 000 inhabitants was 4.61, 95% CI (4.42 to 4.80), in Spain 2.58, 95% CI (2.54 to 2.62) and in Denmark 2.55, 95% CI (2.40 to 2.69). Other significant measures applied in other countries had no impact.

CONCLUSION

The two indices proposed can be used to quantify the impact of the phase-out measures and to help other countries to make the best decision. Monitoring these phase-out measures over time can minimise the negative effects on citizens.

Lost but Not Least-Novel Insights into Progesterone Receptor Loss in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

Estrogen receptor α (ERα) and progesterone receptor (PgR) are crucial prognostic and predictive biomarkers that are usually co-expressed in breast cancer (BC). However, 12-24% of BCs present ERα(+)/PgR(-) phenotype at immunohistochemical evaluation. In fact, BC may either show primary PgR(-) status (in chemonaïve tumor sample), lose PgR expression during neoadjuvant treatment, or acquire PgR(-) phenotype in local relapse or metastasis. The loss of PgR expression in ERα(+) breast cancer may signify resistance to endocrine therapy and poorer outcomes. On the other hand, ERα(+)/PgR(-) BCs may have a better response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than double-positive tumors. Loss of PgR expression may be a result of pre-transcriptional alterations (copy number loss, mutation, epigenetic modifications), decreased transcription of the PGR gene (e.g., by microRNAs), and post-translational modifications (e.g., phosphorylation, sumoylation). Various processes involved in the down-regulation of PgR have distinct consequences on the biology of cancer cells. Occasionally, negative PgR status detected by immunohistochemical analysis is paradoxically associated with enhanced transcriptional activity of PgR that might be inhibited by antiprogestin treatment. Identification of the mechanism of PgR loss in each patient seems challenging, yet it may provide important information on the biology of the tumor and predict its responsiveness to the therapy.

Biomarker testing in oncology - Requirements for organizing external quality assessment programs to improve the performance of laboratory testing: revision of an expert opinion paper on behalf of IQNPath ABSL

In personalized medicine, predictive biomarker testing is the basis for an appropriate choice of therapy for patients with cancer. An important tool for laboratories to ensure accurate results is participation in external quality assurance (EQA) programs. Several providers offer predictive EQA programs for different cancer types, test methods, and sample types. In 2013, a guideline was published on the requirements for organizing high-quality EQA programs in molecular pathology. Now, after six years, steps were taken to further harmonize these EQA programs as an initiative by IQNPath ABSL, an umbrella organization founded by various EQA providers. This revision is based on current knowledge, adds recommendations for programs developed for predictive biomarkers by in situ methodologies (immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization), and emphasized transparency and an evidence-based approach. In addition, this updated version also has the aim to give an overview of current practices from various EQA providers.

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.