22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prognostic and Predictive Value of HER2 Expression in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS Randomized Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose:

          HER2 is overexpressed more frequently in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) than in invasive breast cancer but its prognostic significance and predictive role for radiotherapy has not been clearly established. We investigated the prognostic and predictive value of HER2 overexpression in DCIS.

          Experimental Design:

          HER2 expression was evaluated by IHC using the HercepTest™ in samples from UK/ANZ DCIS trial participants ( n = 755) with IHC 3+ expression categorized as HER2 positive for primary analyses. Sensitivity analyses included HER2 categorization as negative (IHC 0,1+), equivocal (IHC 2+), and positive (IHC 3+) and analyses restricted to a nested case–control component where 181 cases (with recurrence) were matched to 362 controls by treatment arm and age.

          Results:

          Two-hundred and forty-five (34.4%) of evaluable 713 samples [181 ipsilateral breast events (IBE)] were HER2 positive. HER2 overexpression was associated with significantly increased risk of IBE [HR = 2.29; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.64–3.14; P < 0.0001] and in situ IBE (DCIS-IBE; HR = 2.90; 95% CI, 1.91–4.40; P < 0.0001), but not of invasive IBE (I-IBE; HR = 1.40; 95% CI, 0.81–2.42; P = 0.23; P heterogeneity = 0.04). Inclusion of HER2 significantly improved [Δ χ 2 (1d.f.) 12.25; P = 0.0005] a prognostic model of clinicopathological and treatment variables, HER2 being an independent predictor of IBE (multivariate HR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.33–2.76; P = 0.0004). Radiotherapy benefit in preventing DCIS-IBE was significantly greater ( P heterogeneity = 0.04) in HER2-positive DCIS (HR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07–0.41) compared with HER2-negative DCIS (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.28–1.19).

          Conclusions:

          HER2 overexpression is associated with significantly increased risk of in situ recurrence and is also predictive of radiotherapy benefit, with greater reductions in in situ but not invasive recurrences in HER2-positive DCIS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update.

            To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to > 10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. Copyright © 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

              Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumour markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodological problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumour marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalisability of the study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumour marker studies was a major recommendation of the US National Cancer Institute and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. Similar to the successful CONSORT initiative for randomised trials and the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clinical Cancer Research
                American Association for Cancer Research
                1078-0432
                1557-3265
                01 October 2021
                11 August 2021
                : 27
                : 19
                : 5317-5324
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
                [2 ]School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
                [3 ]Breast Services, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
                [4 ]Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
                [5 ]Barts Cancer Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
                [6 ]Department of Pathology, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
                [7 ]Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester, United Kingdom.
                [8 ]Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
                Author notes
                [* ] Corresponding Author: Mangesh A. Thorat, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom. Phone: 4420-7882-3546; Fax: 4420-7882-3890; E-mail: m.thorat@ 123456qmul.ac.uk or thoratmangesh@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8673-5320
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6007-056X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9467-5233
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7420-7512
                Article
                CCR-21-1239
                10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1239
                7612534
                34380636
                a7b84a4c-e256-427e-8f76-93cf683e3250
                ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research

                This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

                History
                : 03 April 2021
                : 23 May 2021
                : 30 July 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 8
                Funding
                Funded by: Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), https://doi.org/10.13039/100001006;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Cancer Research UK (CRUK), https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000289;
                Award ID: C569/A12061
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Cancer Research UK (CRUK), https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000289;
                Award ID: C569/A16891
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Precision Medicine and Imaging

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                33
                3
                23
                1
                Smart Citations
                33
                3
                23
                1
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content351

                Cited by17

                Most referenced authors809