Refinement of immunohistologic parameters for Her2/neu scoring validation by FISH and CISH

Free digital image analysis software helps to resolve equivocal scores in HER2 immunohistochemistry

Evaluation of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is subject to interobserver variation and lack of reproducibility. Digital image analysis (DIA) has been shown to improve the consistency and accuracy of the evaluation and its use is encouraged in current testing guidelines. We studied whether digital image analysis using a free software application (ImmunoMembrane) can assist in interpreting HER2 IHC in equivocal 2+ cases. We also compared digital photomicrographs with whole-slide images (WSI) as material for ImmunoMembrane DIA. We stained 750 surgical resection specimens of invasive breast cancers immunohistochemically for HER2 and analysed staining with ImmunoMembrane. The ImmunoMembrane DIA scores were compared with the originally responsible pathologists' visual scores, a researcher's visual scores and in situ hybridisation (ISH) results. The originally responsible pathologists reported 9.1 % positive 3+ IHC scores, for the researcher this was 8.4 % and for ImmunoMembrane 9.5 %. Equivocal 2+ scores were 34 % for the pathologists, 43.7 % for the researcher and 10.1 % for ImmunoMembrane. Negative 0/1+ scores were 57.6 % for the pathologists, 46.8 % for the researcher and 80.8 % for ImmunoMembrane. There were six false positive cases, which were classified as 3+ by ImmunoMembrane and negative by ISH. Six cases were false negative defined as 0/1+ by IHC and positive by ISH. ImmunoMembrane DIA using digital photomicrographs and WSI showed almost perfect agreement. In conclusion, digital image analysis by ImmunoMembrane can help to resolve a majority of equivocal 2+ cases in HER2 IHC, which reduces the need for ISH testing.

Chromogenic in situ hybridization compared with other approaches to evaluate HER2/neu status in breast carcinomas

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) has been evaluated in breast cancer patients to identify those most likely to benefit from herceptin-targeted therapy. HER2 amplification, detected in 20-30% of invasive breast tumors, is associated with reduced survival and metastasis. The most frequently used technique for evaluating HER2 protein status as a routine procedure is immunohistochemistry (IHC). HER2 copy number alterations have also been evaluated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in moderate immunoexpression (IHC 2+) cases. An alternative procedure to evaluate gene amplification is chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH), which has some advantages over FISH, including the correlation between HER2 status and morphological features. Other methodologies have also been used, such as silver-enhanced in situ hybridization (SISH) and quantitative real-time RT-PCR, to determine the number of HER2 gene copies and expression, respectively. Here we will present a short and comprehensive review of the current advances concerning HER2 evaluation in human breast cancer.

Standardization in immunohistology

The rapid acceptance of immunohistology as an invaluable adjunct to morphologic diagnosis has been possible because of the development of new and more sensitive antibodies and detection systems that allow its application to formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPT). More importantly, antigen-retrieval techniques have resulted in some degree of consistency allowing immunohistology to be used reliably as a diagnostic tool. The advent of prognostic and predictive biomarkers, and the desire for individualized therapy has resulted in mounting pressure to employ the immunohistological assay in a quantitative manner. While it was not a major issue when the technique was employed in a qualitative manner, the numerous variables in the preanalytical and analytical phases of the test procedure that influence the immunoexpression of proteins in FFPT become critical to standardization. Tissue fixation is pivotal to antigen preservation but exposure to fixative prior to accessioning by the laboratory is not controlled. Antigen retrieval, crucial in the analytical phase, continues to be employed in an empirical manner with the actual mechanism of action remaining elusive. There is great variation in reagents, methodology, and duration of tissue processing and immunostaining procedure, and the detection systems employed are not standardized between laboratories. While many of these variables are offset by the application of antigen retrieval, which enables the detection of a wide range of antigens in FFPT, the method itself is not standardized. This myriad of variables makes it inappropriate to provide meaningful comparisons of results obtained in different laboratories and even in the same laboratory, as in current practice, each specimen experiences different preanalytical variables. Furthermore, variables in interpretation exist and cutoff thresholds for positivity differ. Failure to recognize false-positive and false-negative stains leads to further errors of quantitative measurement. Many of the problems relating to the technology and interpretation of immunostaining originate from failure to recognize that this procedure is different from other histological stains and involves many more steps that cannot be monitored until the end result is attained. While several remedial measures can be suggested to address some of these problems, accurate and reproducible quantitative assessment of immunostains presently remains elusive as important variables that impact on antigen preservation in the paraffin-embedded biopsy -cannot be standardized.

Immunohistology--past, present, and future

The rapid development of immunohistochemistry, a morphology-based technique, has come about through refinements in detection systems and an increasing range of sensitive and specific antibodies that have allowed application of the technique to formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. The introduction of heat-induced antigen retrieval has been a significant milestone to compliment these developments so that the immunohistochemistry is firmly entrenched as an indispensable adjunct to morphologic diagnosis. Although this ancillary stain was initially used in a qualitative manner, problems surrounding the many variables that influence antigen preservation in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues were not a major issue and laboratories strived to optimize their staining protocols to the material they accessioned and processed. The advent of personalized medicine and targeted cancer treatment has imposed the need to quantitate the stain reaction product and has resulted in calls to standardize the process of immunostaining. A closer examination of the variables that influence the ability to show antigens in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues revealed many important variables, particularly in the preanalytical phase of the assay, that are beyond the control of the accessioning laboratory. Although analytical factors have the potential to be standardized, the actions of many pivotal procedures including fixation and antigen retrieval are not completely understood. Postanalytical processes including threshold and cut-off values require consensus and standardization and it is clear that some of these goals can be achieved through the direction of national and international organizations associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment. With the ability to serve as a surrogate marker of many genetic abnormalities, immunohistochemistry enters a new era and the need to better understand some of the mechanisms fundamental to the technique become more pressing and the development of true quantitative assays is imperative. There is also an increasing appreciation that the technique highlights patterns of staining that reflect exquisite localization to organelles and tissue structures that are not appreciable in routine stains, adding a further dimension to morphologic diagnosis.

Monoplex LightCycler polymerase chain reaction quantitation of the HER2 gene for quality assurance of HER2/neu testing by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization

BACKGROUND

Assessment of HER2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a standard practice for breast carcinomas. Testing is associated with a 20% disagreement between laboratories. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidelines for HER2 testing include validation of HER2 test methods by achieving 95% concordance with another validated method. Our laboratory requires IHC 3+ FISH nonamplified specimens to undergo retesting by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). A random sample of IHC 2+ cases are routinely tested by PCR. We found this practice useful for resolving discrepancies in HER2 testing.

METHODS

At clinician request, seventy-nine 3+ and one hundred forty-eight 2+ cases were tested by FISH. In 22 cases, IHC was 3+ but FISH was nonamplified. These 22 cases underwent HER2 LightCycler monoplex polymerase chain reaction (MPCR) testing. Seventeen 2+ nonamplified cases were tested by MPCR.

RESULTS

Twenty-one 3+, FISH nonamplified cases were found to be MPCR nonamplified. One IHC 3+, FISH nonamplified case was MPCR amplified. Seventeen 2+, FISH nonamplified cases were MPCR nonamplified. In all but one case, FISH and MPCR were concordant.

DISCUSSION

American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP guidelines propose validation of testing procedures by showing 95% concordance with a validated test for positive and negative assays. Specific actions are not recommended to resolve discordances between tests. Our laboratory uses 3 different modalities for HER2 testing. We have found that our 2 methods for testing gene amplification status show a higher degree of concordance between themselves than either did with IHC. Review of the 3+ IHC nonamplified cases showed them to have a dark, granular circumferential staining pattern.

Inter-observer reproducibility of HER2 immunohistochemical assessment and concordance with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH): pathologist assessment compared to quantitative image analysis

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer patients, HER2 overexpression is routinely assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and equivocal cases are subject to fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Our study compares HER2 scoring by histopathologists with automated quantitation of staining, and determines the concordance of IHC scores with FISH results.

METHODS

A tissue microarray was constructed from 1,212 invasive breast carcinoma cases with linked treatment and outcome information. IHC slides were semi-quantitatively scored by two independent pathologists on a range of 0 to 3+, and also analyzed with an Ariol automated system by two operators. 616 cases were scorable by both IHC and FISH.

RESULTS

Using data from unequivocal positive (3+) or negative (0, 1+) results, both visual and automated scores were highly consistent: there was excellent concordance between two pathologists (kappa = 1.000, 95% CI: 1-1), between two machines (kappa = 1.000, 95% CI: 1-1), and between both visual and both machine scores (kappa = 0.898, 95% CI: 0.775-0.979). Two pathologists successfully distinguished negative, positive and equivocal cases (kappa = 0.929, 95% CI: 0.909-0.946), with excellent agreement with machine 1 scores (kappa = 0.835, 95% CI: 0.806-0.862; kappa = 0.837, 95% CI: 0.81-0.862), and good agreement with machine 2 scores (kappa = 0.698, 95% CI: 0.6723-0.723; kappa = 0.709, 95% CI: 0.684-0.732), whereas the two machines showed good agreement (kappa = 0.806, 95% CI: 0.785-0.826). When comparing categorized IHC scores and FISH results, the agreement was excellent for visual 1 (kappa = 0.814, 95% CI: 0.768-0.856), good for visual 2 (kappa = 0.763, 95% CI: 0.712-0.81) and machine 1 (kappa = 0.665, 95% CI: 0.609-0.718), and moderate for machine 2 (kappa = 0.535, 95% CI: 0.485-0.584).

CONCLUSION

A fully automated image analysis system run by an experienced operator can provide results consistent with visual HER2 scoring. Further development of such systems will likely improve the accuracy of detection and categorization of membranous staining, making this technique suitable for use in quality assurance programs and eventually in clinical practice.

High concordance between immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization testing for HER2 status in breast cancer requires a normalized IHC scoring system

The American Society of Clinical Oncologists and College of American Pathologists have recently released new guidelines for laboratory testing of HER2 status in breast cancer, which require high levels (95%) of concordance between immunohistochemistry positive (3+) and fluorescence in situ hybridization-amplified cases, and between immunohistochemistry negative (0/1+) and fluorescence in situ hybridization-nonamplified cases; these required levels of concordance are significantly higher than those found in most published studies. We tested the hypothesis that a modification of the HER2 immunohistochemistry scoring system could significantly improve immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization concordance. A total of 6604 breast cancer specimens were evaluated for HER2 status by both immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization using standard methodologies. Results were compared when the standard immunohistochemistry scoring system was replaced by a normalized scoring system in which the HER2 score was derived by subtracting the score on the non-neoplastic breast epithelium from that on the tumor cells. Among the 6604 tumors, using a non-normalized immunohistochemistry scoring system, 267/872 (30.6%) of the immunohistochemistry 3+ cases proved to be fluorescence in situ hybridization nonamplified, whereas using the normalized scoring system only 30/562 (5.3%) of immunohistochemistry 3+ cases proved to be 'false positive'. The concordance rate between immunohistochemistry 3+ and fluorescence in situ hybridization-amplified cases using the normalized scoring method was 94.7%, whereas the concordance using the non-normalized method was only 69.4%. Extremely high concordance between immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer is achievable, but to attain this high level of concordance, modification of the FDA-approved immunohistochemistry scoring system is required.

Analysis of surrogate markers for target-specific therapy in breast carcinomas using archival materials

Recent development of target-specific therapy may have the potential to revolutionize cancer therapy. Target-specific therapy such as trastuzumab or imatinib requires the presence of its specific target in cancer cells. Therefore, it has become very important to identify these targets as a surrogate marker such as HER2/neu for trastuzumab in breast cancer or c-kit for imatinib in gastrointesitinal stromal tumor for these treatments to exert maximum clinical benefits on the patients with these malignancies. Archival or 10% formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded materials could be the most accessible materials available for examining these surrogate markers for therapy, especially in patients with breast carcinoma. In addition, correlation of the findings with histological features that are pivotal in an evaluation of the findings obtained and retrospective analysis are both possible in these analyses. Immunohistochemistry or FISH for HER2/neu have been widely performed in numerous institutions and provide the gold standard for the treatment of trastuzumab in patients with breast carcinoma. In addition, an analysis of potential surrogate markers at DNA, mRNA and protein levels has become possible using archival materials of human breast carcinoma. However, it is very important to make these analyses widely available or possible to perform in any of the regular diagnostic laboratories without technical difficulties and financial burden on the patients. In addition, it is necessary to standardize the following when using surgical pathology materials for the analysis of these markers, especially in terms of quality control or reproducibility of the results obtained by the analysis: (1) fixation or specimens preparation, (2) methodology to be used and (3) interpretation and/or assessment of the findings.

Chromogenic and fluorescent in situ hybridization in breast cancer

Fluorescent (FISH) and chromogenic (CISH) in situ hybridization have recently become part of the diagnostic armamentarium of breast pathologists. HER2 gene testing by FISH and/or CISH has become an integral part of the diagnostic workup for patients with breast cancer. In this era of high throughput technologies, these techniques have proven instrumental for the validation of results from microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization and for the identification of novel oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Furthermore, FISH and CISH applied to tissue microarrays have expedited the characterization of genomic changes associated with specific breast cancer molecular subtypes and the identification of novel prognostic and predictive markers. In this review, we provide in this review a critical assessment of CISH and FISH and the impact of the analysis of amplification of specific oncogenes (eg, HER2, EGFR, MYC, CCND1, and FGFR1) and deletion of tumor suppressor genes (eg, BRCA1 and BRCA2) on our understanding of breast cancer.