Purpose: While HER2 testing is well established in directing appropriate treatment for breast cancer, a small percentage of cases show equivocal results by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Alternative probes may be used in equivocal cases. We present a single community-based institution's experience in further evaluating these cases.
Patients and methods: Between 2014 and 2016, 4255 samples were submitted for HER2 amplification testing by alternative probes, TP53, RAI1, and RARA. Of the patients tested by FISH, 505/3908 (12.9%) also had IHC data.
Results: Most (73.9%) FISH equivocal cases remained equivocal after IHC testing. However, 50.5% of equivocal cases were classified as HER2 amplified by alternative probes. Most cases were positive by more than one probe: 78% of positive cases by RAI1 and 73.9% by TP53. There was a significant difference between IHC and FISH alternative testing (p < 0.0001) among the equivocal cases by conventional FISH testing, 44% of IHC negative cases became positive while 36% of the positive IHC cases became negative by alternative FISH testing. Available data showed that 41% of patients were treated with palbociclib and were positive by alternative FISH.
Conclusion: The prevalence of double HER2 equivocal cases and the discrepancy between IHC and alternative FISH testing suggest that FISH alternative testing using both RAI1 and TP53 probes is necessary for conclusive classification. Because almost half of FISH equivocal cases converted to HER2 amplified upon alternative testing, clinical studies to determine the benefit of anti-HER2 therapy in these patients are urgently needed.
Keywords: Breast cancer; Equivocal; FISH; HER2; IHC.