Implementation of External Quality Assurance Trials for Immunohistochemically Determined Breast Cancer Biomarkers in Germany

[Quality assurance in diagnostic in situ hybridization-experience of QuIP]

The Quality Assurance Initiative Pathology (QuIP) gives pathologists the opportunity to check the methodological processes of immunohistological and molecular diagnostics in a result-oriented manner and obtain a certificate reflecting the quality. For in situ hybridization (ISH), 5 round robin tests were organized in 2019, two recurrent (HER2-ISH gastric carcinomas and HER2-ISH breast carcinomas) and three prototypical (ROS1-NSCLC, ALK1-NSCLC, NTRK). The different round robin tests, which were provided by QuIP, are based on the development in diagnostics and the importance of the therapeutic relevance of the molecules which are tested. The results of the round robin tests in 2019 showed a sensitivity of at least 94.4%, a specificity of at least 96.6%, and a success rate of 85-99%. This reflected the high standard of quality of the round robin test and the participating institutes.

Interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Postanalytic issues of Ki67 assessment in breast cancers like counting method standardisation and interrater bias have been subject of various studies, but little is known about analytic variability of Ki67 staining between pathology labs. Our aim was to study interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer using tissue microarrays (TMAs) and central assessment to minimise preanalytic and postanalytic influences.

METHODS

Thirty European pathology labs stained serial slides of a TMA set of breast cancer tissues with Ki67 according to their routine in-house protocol. The Ki67-labelling index (Ki67-LI) of 70 matched samples was centrally assessed by one observer who counted all cancer cells per sample. We then tested for differences between the labs in Ki67-LI medians by analysing variance on ranks and in proportions of tumours classified as luminal A after dichotomising oestrogen receptor-positive cancers into cancers showing low (<14%, luminal A) and high (≥14%, luminal B HER2 negative) Ki67-LI using Cochran's Q.

RESULTS

Substantial differences between the 30 labs were indicated for median Ki67-LI (0.65%-33.0%, p < 0.0001) and proportion of cancers classified as luminal A (17%-57%, p < 0.0001). The differences remained significant when labs using the same antibody (MIB-1, SP6, or 30-9) were analysed separately or labs without prior participation in external quality assurance programs were excluded (p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Substantial variability in Ki67 staining of breast cancer tissue was found between 30 routine pathology labs. Clinical use of the Ki67-LI for therapeutic decisions should be considered only fully aware of lab-specific reference values.

Whole slide imaging for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry interpretation: Accuracy, Precision, and reproducibility studies for digital manual and paired glass slide manual interpretation

Background:

The use of digital whole slide imaging for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemistry (IHC) could create improvements in workflow and performance, allowing for central archiving of specimens, distributed and remote interpretation, and the potential for additional computerized automation.

Procedures:

The accuracy, precision, and reproducibility of manual digital interpretation for HER2 IHC were determined by comparison to manual glass slide interpretation. Inter- and intra-pathologist reproducibility and precision between the glass slide and digital interpretations of HER2 IHC were determined in 5 studies using DAKO HercepTest-stained breast cancer slides with the Philips Digital Pathology System. In 2 inter-method studies, 3 pathologists interpreted glass and digital slides in sequence or in random order with a minimum of 7 days as a washout period. These studies also measured inter-observer reproducibility and precision. Another two studies measured intra-pathologist reproducibility on cases read 10 times by glass and digital methods. One additional study evaluated the effects of adding IHC control slides with each run, using 1 pathologist interpreting glass and digital slides randomized from the sets above along with appropriate controls for each slide in the set.

Results:

The overall results show that there is no statistical difference between the variance of performance when comparing glass and digital HER2 interpretations; and there were no effects noted when control tissues were evaluated in conjunction with the test slides.

Conclusions:

The results show that there is an equivalence of result when interpreting HER2 IHC slides in breast cancer by either glass slides or digital images. Digital interpretation can therefore be safely and effectively used for this purpose.

Accuracy and Reproducibility of HER2 Status in Breast Cancer Using Immunohistochemistry: A Quality Control Study in Tuscany Evaluating the Impact of Updated 2013 ASCO/CAP Recommendations

The correct identification of HER2-positive cases is a key point to provide the most appropriate therapy to breast cancer (BC) patients. We aimed at investigating the reproducibility and accuracy of HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in a selected series of 35 invasive BC cases across the pathological anatomy laboratories in Tuscany, Italy. Unstained sections of each BC case were sent to 12 participating laboratories. Pathologists were required to score according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) four-tier scoring system (0, 1+, 2+, 3+). Sixteen and nineteen cases were HER2 non-amplified and amplified respectively on fluorescence in situ hybridization. Among 192 readings of the 16 HER2 non-amplified samples, 153 (79.7%) were coded as 0 or 1+, 39 (20.3%) were 2+, and none was 3+ (false positive rate 0%). Among 228 readings of the 19 HER2 amplified samples, 56 (24.6%) were scored 0 or 1+, 79 (34.6%) were 2+, and 93 (40.8%) were 3+. The average sensitivity was 75.4%, ranging between 47% and 100%, and the overall false negative rate was 24.6%. Participation of pathological anatomy laboratories performing HER2 testing by IHC in external quality assurance programs should be made mandatory, as the system is able to identify laboratories with suboptimal performance that may need technical advice. Updated 2013 ASCO/CAP recommendations should be adopted as the widening of IHC 2+ "equivocal" category would improve overall accuracy of HER2 testing, as more cases would be classified in this category and, consequently, tested with an in situ hybridisation method.

Guideline on the requirements of external quality assessment programs in molecular pathology

Molecular pathology is an integral part of daily diagnostic pathology and used for classification of tumors, for prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, and to support treatment decisions. For these reasons, analyses in molecular pathology must be highly reliable and hence external quality assessment (EQA) programs are called for. Several EQA programs exist to which laboratories can subscribe, but they vary in scope, number of subscribers, and execution. The guideline presented in this paper has been developed with the purpose to harmonize EQA in molecular pathology. It presents recommendations on how an EQA program should be organized, provides criteria for a reference laboratory, proposes requirements for EQA test samples, and defines the number of samples needed for an EQA program. Furthermore, a system for scoring of the results is proposed as well as measures to be taken for poorly performing laboratories. Proposals are made regarding the content requirements of an EQA report and how its results should be communicated. Finally, the need for an EQA database and a participant manual are elaborated. It is the intention of this guideline to improve EQA for molecular pathology in order to provide more reliable molecular analyses as well as optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment.

Quality assessment of HER2 testing by monitoring of positivity rates

Interlaboratory variation in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing provides a challenge for targeted therapy in breast and gastric cancer. Assessment of positivity rates among laboratories could help monitor their performance and define reference values for positivity rates to be expected in a geographic region. Pathologists regularly determined the number of HER2-positive cases (HER2 3+, HER2 2+/amplified or amplified) in their laboratory, and figures were continuously entered into a central website. The overall positivity rate of each participant was calculated and compared with the average rates of all other institutes (n = 42). A total of 18,081 test results on breast cancer and 982 on gastric cancer were entered into the system. Positivity rates for HER2 in breast cancer ranged from 7.6% to 31.6%. Statistically, the results from six institutions qualified as outliers (p < 0.000005). From the remaining institutions encompassing 10,916 assessments, the mean proportion of positive cases was 16.7 ± 3.2% (99% confidence interval 16.6–16.8). The results from six institutions were in between the 95% and 99.5% confidence intervals. For gastric cancer, there was one outlier and the mean positivity rate was 23.2 ± 5.7%. The proportion of HER2-positive breast cancer cases is considerably lower than could have been expected from published studies. By assessing the positivity rates and comparing them with that of all breast or gastric cancers in a given population, pathologists will be alerted to a potential systematic error in their laboratory assay, causative for over- or underestimation of cancer cases suited for anti-HER2 therapy.

Pathologists' Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer

Expression of the hormone receptors (estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR)) as well as overexpression / amplification of the human epi-dermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) have not only been identified as important prognostic factors among patients with breast cancer. They have also been characterized as essential predictive factors for benefit derivable from endocrine treatment or immunologic therapies directed against HER2, respectively. Hence, reliable determination of hormone receptor and HER2 status among patients with breast cancer has become of utmost importance. The need for developing and promoting standard methodologies for the assessment of the individual disease phenotype has previously been acknowledged by publication of novel guidelines for HER2 testing. For HER2 testing, these guidelines have been developed in 2007 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in conjunction with the American College of Pathology (CAP). Recently, ASCO/CAP have acknowledged the need for standardized assessment of hormone receptor status.We asked two experts in the field of breast pathology whether the new guidelines on hormone receptor testing would change current practice of hormone receptor status measurement in Germany and how they should be viewed in face of novel developments regarding gene expression based multigene predictive factors.Cornelia Liedtke, Münster and Oleg Gluz, Wuppertal.