Comparing the Sensitivity of HER2 Epitope Detection of HercepTest mAb pharmDx (Dako Omnis, GE001) and Ventana PATHWAY Anti-HER-2/neu (4B5) Using IHC Calibrators
Frederik Aidt,Maria Sierra,Karin Salomon,Ghislain Noumsi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/pai.0000000000001230
IF: 1.992
2024-11-08
Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology
Abstract:The assessment and therapeutic significance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer have historically been based on a standard binary system, that classifies patients according to their immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) results: HER2-negative (IHC0, IHC1+, and IHC2+/ISH-); and HER2-positive (IHC2+/ISH+ and IHC3+). 1 The recent approval of Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan, a third-generation antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) for HER2-low (IHC1+ and IHC2+/ISH-) breast cancer patients has highlighted the need to adapt current HER2 assessment, to integrate the clinical needs of this new category of patients. 2,3 Updated guidelines for HER2-low assessment and reporting have now been issued by both the American Society of Clinical Oncology—College of American Pathologists (ASCO-CAP), and the European Society for Medical Oncology—Expert Consensus. These new guidelines affirm the previous ASCO-CAP 2018 HER2 scoring algorithm and maintain consistency in the nomenclature used to report HER2, according to the results of approved IHC and ISH assays. 2,3 The proper treatment course which derives from the interpretation of the HER2 IHC scoring result into HER2 over expressed, HER2 low, and HER2 not over expressed, is determined by the oncologist. 1,4 Current HER2 IHC testing is based on semiquantitative assays, that were developed to detect HER2 overexpression (IHC2+/ISH+, IHC3+). The interest in the lower end of the HER2 expression spectrum considering new ADC approvals raises questions on the capability of these assays to effectively classify patients across the range of HER2 expression, and more importantly to discriminate between HER2-negative (IHC0), HER2-low (IHC1+, IHC2+/ISH-), and HER2-positive (IHC2+/ISH+ and IHC3+/ISH+). 5,6 These questions are clinically relevant. Some patients classified in the IHC0 category following the ASCO/CAP guidelines for HER2 scoring, show a faint to weak incomplete membrane staining in <10% of tumor cells, which is equivalent to a score of <1+ and could fit in the new HER2-ultralow category. Recent data suggests that these patients could equally benefit from T-DXd therapy. 6 Although the potential mechanism of action of these new ADCs in HER2 IHC0 is not yet well understood, some studies demonstrate a quantitative relationship between the uptake amount of the cytotoxic payload found in ADCs and the level of expression of the targeted antigen. 7,8 In vitro studies have demonstrated that threshold densities for efficient binding and internalization of HER2-targeted ADCs are between 50,000 to 200,000 HER2 receptor molecules on the cell membrane. 7,9 However, given multiple reports of a potentially beneficial response from T-DXd in some patients with IHC scores between 0 and 1+ (0<ihc<1+), efficacy="" for="" her2="" is="" it="" likely="" lower. 6,10 From the perspective of a pathologist routinely performing HER2 scoring on breast cancer specimens, the fundamental question is how to accurately identify and differentiate "true" HER2-negative (IHC0) cases from "borderline" (0<ihc<1+) achieve="" efficacy. 10 The effectiveness of the HER2 assays available in the market to detect HER2 expression in the lower range is not the same, with multiple reports suggesting a higher sensitivity of some over others. 11,12 This variability arises from disparities in preanalytical procedures, antibody selection, staining conditions, and interpretation criteria, among other factors.</ihc </ihc
pathology,medical laboratory technology,anatomy & morphology