Liquid Biopsy and Tissue Biopsy Comparison with Digital PCR and IHC/FISH for HER2 Amplification Detection in Breast Cancer Patients

Suhong Xie, Yan Wang, Zhiyun Gong, Yuan Li, Wentao Yang, Guangyu Liu, Jianwei Li, Xin Hu, Yanchun Wang, Yin Tong, Peng Yuan, Yiran Si, Yikun Kang, Yong Mao, Xiaowei Qi, Yankui Liu, Jiajia Ou, Zhaoliang Li, Xin Pan, Zhaoqing Lv, Kavanaugh Kaji, Lin Guo, Renquan Lu, Suhong Xie, Yan Wang, Zhiyun Gong, Yuan Li, Wentao Yang, Guangyu Liu, Jianwei Li, Xin Hu, Yanchun Wang, Yin Tong, Peng Yuan, Yiran Si, Yikun Kang, Yong Mao, Xiaowei Qi, Yankui Liu, Jiajia Ou, Zhaoliang Li, Xin Pan, Zhaoqing Lv, Kavanaugh Kaji, Lin Guo, Renquan Lu

Abstract

Two hundred twenty-four breast cancer patients with paired tissue and plasma samples were enrolled from 3 clinical centers to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of a digital PCR HER2 amplification assay. All patients were histologically confirmed diagnosis of locally advanced and recurrent or metastatic breast cancer with stage III/IV and had tissue HER2 status determinations using IHC/FISH. For the whole 224 advanced breast cancer patients, the sensitivity between dPCR in plasma and IHC/FISH in tissue samples is 43.75% (42/96), the specificity is 84.38% (108/128) and the overall concordance is 66.96% (150/224). Interestingly, when we looked at stage III, stage IV and recurrent or metastatic breast cancer separately, compared with IHC/FISH in tissue samples, the sensitivity of dPCR in plasma increases from 37.93% (11/29) for stage III to 41.67% (15/36) for stage IV cancer. Recurrent breast cancer patient had an increased sensitivity of 51.61% (16/31). This is consistent with our expectation sensitivity would increase concordantly as tumor burden goes up. On the other hand, specificity decreased from 92.68% (38/41) for stage III to 86.44% (51/59) for stage IV cancer. Recurrent breast cancer patient had a specificity of only 67.86% (19/28). This is, in part, due to inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity. Many patients determined to be negative for HER2 amplification in tissue biopsy could have HER2 positive tumors at other sites, which was detected by the liquid biopsy. This study suggested the necessity of liquid biopsy for HER2 amplification detection and demonstrated digital PCR can be used as a companion diagnostic tool to determine HER2 amplification status. It also suggested that a liquid biopsy should follow a negative result from tissue biopsy to avoid false negative results especially for late-stage breast cancer patients and ones who experienced relapse or became resistant to current therapy. Future studies should focus on therapeutic effects on patients determined to be HER2 positive through liquid biopsy and collecting additional tissue biopsies to identify HER2 positive tumor when the original tissue biopsy and liquid biopsy don't agree.

Keywords: HER2; digital PCR; liquid biopsy; sensitivity; tissue biopsy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

© The author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the analyses on enrolled patients.

References

    1. Patel A, Unni N, Peng Y. The changing paradigm for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:2081.
    1. Swain SM, Baselga J, Kim SB. et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724–34.
    1. Lee CK, Wu YL, Ding PN. et al. Impact of specific epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and clinical characteristics on outcomes after treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors versus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant lung cancer: A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncl. 2015;33:1958–65.
    1. Sequsit LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N. et al. Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3327–34.
    1. Mitsudomi T, Morita S, Yatabe Y. et al. Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): An open label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncl. 2010;11:121–28.
    1. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R. et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): A multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:239–46.
    1. Noordhuis MG, Eijsink JJH, ten Hoor KA. et al. Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and activated EGFR predict poor response to (chemo)radiation and survival in cervical cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7389–97.
    1. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:883–92.
    1. Caswell-Jin JL, McNamara K, Reiter JG. et al. Clonal replacement and heterogeneity in breast tumors treated with neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy. Nat Commun. 2019;10:657.
    1. Bedard PL, Hansen AR, Ratain MJ, Siu LL. Tumor heterogeneity in the clinic. Nature. 2013;501:355–64.
    1. Kim B, Nam SK, Seo SH. et al. Comparative analysis of HER2 copy number between plasma and tissue samples in gastric cancer using droplet digital PCR. Sci Rep. 2020;10:4177.
    1. Joung JG, Bae JS, Kim SC. et al. Genomic characterization and comparison of multi-regional and pooled tumor biopsy specimen. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152574.
    1. Keller L, Belloum Y, Wikman H, Pantel K. Clinical relevance of blood-based ctDNA analysis: Mutation detection and beyond. Br J Cancer. 2021;124:345–58.
    1. Fiala C, Diamandis EP. Utility of circulating tumor DNA in cancer diagnostic with emphasis on early detection. BMC Medicine. 2018;16:166.
    1. Shoda K, Ichikawa D, Fujita Y. et al. Monitoring the HER2 copy number status in circulating tumor DNA by droplet digital PCR in patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20:126–35.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for Patients: Breast Cancer, Metastatic. Effective date 2020. .
    1. Cuadros M, Villegas R. Systematic review of HER2 breast cancer testing. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2009;17:1–7.
    1. Hick DG Schiffhauer L. Standardized assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. Laboratory Medicine. 2011;42:459–67.
    1. Furrer D, Sanschagrin F, Jacob S, Diorio C. Advantages and disadvantages of technologies for HER2 testing in breast cancer specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;144:686–703.
    1. Bilous M, Dowsett M, Hanna W. et al. Current perspectives on HER2 testing: A review of national testing guidelines. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:173–82.
    1. VanGuilder HD, Vrana KE, Freeman WM. Twenty-five years of quantitative PCR for gene expression analysis. BioTechniques. 2008;44:619–26.
    1. Belgrader P, Tanner SC, Regan JF. et al. Droplet Digital PCR Measurement of HER2 Copy Number Alteration in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Breast Carcinoma Tissue. Clin Chem. 2013;59:991–4.
    1. Gevensleben H, Garcia-Murillas I, Graeser MK. et al. Noninvasive detection of HER2 amplification with plasma DNA digital PCR. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:3276–84.
    1. Zhou R, Yuan P, Zhang L. et al. Using digital PCR to detect HER2 amplification in breast and gastric cancer patients. Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine. 2018;2:102–8.
    1. Keup C, Suryaprakash V, Storbeck M. et al. Longitudinal multi-parametric liquid biopsy approach identifies unique features of circulating tumor cell, extracellular vesicle, and cell-free DNA characterization for disease monitoring in metastatic breast cancer patients. Cells. 2021;10:212.
    1. Zhou R, Cai Y, Li Z. et al. A digital PCR assay development to detect EGFR T790M mutation in NSCLC patients. Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine. 2018;2:89–96.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for Patients: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Metastatic. Effective date 2021. .

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir