4.3 Article

Genotypic Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Breast Carcinoma With HER2/neu Amplification

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 131, Issue 5, Pages 678-682

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP09VUTZWZXBMJ

Keywords

Breast carcinoma; HER2/neu; Intratumoral heterogeneity; Fluorescence in situ hybridization; FISH; American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines

Categories

Funding

  1. Verona Vicenza Belluno and Ancona
  2. Ministero University a Istruzione e Ricerca, Rome, Italy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated intratumoral heterogeneity of 30 ductal breast carcinomas with HER2/neu amplification, scored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) criteria, and 3+ immunoexpression. High-grade (ratio >= 4.0) vs low-grade amplification (ratio >2.2 to <4.0) and chromosome 17 polysomy were also evaluated. On whole tissue sections, 20 tumors (67%) showed high-grade and 10 (33%) showed low-grade HER2/neu amplification. Of 20 tumors with high-grade amplification, 14 (700) showed no intratumoral genotypic heterogeneity; 6 (30%) showed at least 1 core with low-grade amplification. Of 10 cases with low-grade amplification, 6 (60%), showed no intratumoral heterogeneity; 4 (40%) showed chromosome 17 polysomy without gene amplification in 2 of 3 cores per case. Of 30 cases with gene amplification, 4 (13%) showed a not-amplified pattern in other parts of the tumor. The routine assessment of HER2/neu amplification using the ASCO/CAP criteria on whole tissue sections is not significantly confounded by intratumoral heterogeneity in breast cancer with high-grade amplification; however, genetic heterogeneity exists in a subset of breast carcinomas with low-grade amplification. The clinical relevance and impact on treatment outcome of intratumoral heterogeneity in breast cancer with low-grade HER2/neu amplification or chromosome 17 polysomy need further investigation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available