HER2 Status Assessment in Endometrial Serous Carcinoma: Comparative Analysis of Two Proposed Testing and...

HER2 status is now routinely assessed in endometrial serous carcinoma (ESC) due to the reported predictive value of HER2 protein overexpression and/or gene amplification. Herein the authors compare 2 proposed testing and interpretation guidelines for HER2 in ESC. Forty-three consecutive cases of ESC that had been dually tested by both HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were interpreted using 2 sets of guidelines. Guideline set 1 (GS1) is the 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines for breast cancer. Guideline set 2 (GS2) is a recent proposal that is a slight modification of the enrollment criteria for the clinical trial (NCT01367002) that demonstrated a survival benefit for anti-HER2 therapy in ESC. By IHC, GS1 and GS2, respectively classified 39.5% (17/43) and 28% (12/43) of ESC as HER2-negative, 37.2% (16/43) and 53.4% (23/43) as HER2 equivocal, and 23.2% (10/43) and 18.6% (8/43) as HER2-positive ( P > 0.05 for all). IHC and FISH were highly concordant at the extremes using either set of guidelines, as no cases were found to be IHC3+/FISH-negative or IHC 0-1+/FISH-positive. GS1 and GS2 were comparable regarding the proportion of IHC equivocal cases that were HER2 amplified by FISH (19% vs 23% respectively; [ P = 0.71]). GS1 and GS2 displayed 98% (42/43) concordance regarding the final (IHC and/or FISH-based) classification of tumors as being HER2-positive or negative, and the same 13 cases were ultimately classified as HER2 amplified using either GS1 or GS2. One "discordant" case was classified as HER2-positive using GS2 but HER2-negative using GS1 (HER2 IHC score 2+ using both guidelines, HER2:CEP17 signal ratio of 3, HER2 signal number of 3.4). Six (14%) of the 43 cases (FISH Groups: 2, 3, and 4) would require IHC results to interpret the FISH findings using GS1. Because GS1 requires that the HER2 IHC staining be observed within a homogeneous and contiguous invasive cell population, and this is not a requirement in GS2, GS2 may be better suited for ESC given its frequently heterogeneous staining pattern. Additional studies may be required on the optimal interpretation of problematic dual-probe FISH scenarios in GS2 and the necessity for IHC correlation in such scenarios. Using either set of guidelines, our findings support a reflex testing strategy of restricting FISH testing to cases that are IHC equivocal.