Semi-automated analysis of HER2 immunohistochemistry in invasive breast carcinoma using whole slide images: utility for interpretation in clinical practice

• Published in: Pathology oncology research Vol. 30; p. 1611826
• Main Authors: Liao, Chiu-Hsiang Connie, Bakoglu, Nilay, Cesmecioglu, Emine, Hanna, Matthew, Pareja, Fresia, Wen, Hannah Y, D'Alfonso, Timothy M, Brogi, Edi, Yagi, Yukako, Ross, Dara S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 29.08.2024
• Subjects: Biomarkers, Tumor - analysis; Biomarkers, Tumor - metabolism; breast carcinoma; Breast Neoplasms - metabolism; Breast Neoplasms - pathology; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast - metabolism; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast - pathology; Female; HER2; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods; immunohistochemistry; Immunohistochemistry - methods; In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence - methods; Pathology and Oncology Archive; Prognosis; Receptor, ErbB-2 - metabolism; semi-automated analysis; whole slide imaging; whole slide imaging; immunohistochemistry; semi-automated analysis; HER2; breast carcinoma
• DOI: 10.3389/pore.2024.1611826
• ISSN: 1532-2807; 1219-4956

( ) gene amplification and subsequent protein overexpression is a strong prognostic and predictive biomarker in invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). ASCO/CAP recommended tests for HER2 assessment include immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or hybridization (ISH). Accurate HER2 IHC scoring (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) is key for appropriate classification and treatment of IBC. HER2-targeted therapies, including anti-HER2 monoclonal antibodies and antibody drug conjugates (ADC), have revolutionized the treatment of HER2-positive IBC. Recently, ADC have also been approved for treatment of HER2-low (IHC 1+, IHC 2+/ISH-) advanced breast carcinoma, making a distinction between IHC 0 and 1+ crucial. In this focused study, 32 IBC with HER2 IHC scores from 0 to 3+ and HER2 FISH results formed a calibration dataset, and 77 IBC with HER2 IHC score 2+ and paired FISH results (27 amplified, 50 non-amplified) formed a validation dataset. H&E and HER2 IHC whole slide images (WSI) were scanned. Regions of interest were manually annotated and IHC scores generated by the software QuantCenter (MembraneQuant application) by 3DHISTECH Ltd. (Budapest, Hungary) and compared to the microscopic IHC score. H-scores [(3×%IHC3+) +(2×%IHC2+) +(1×%IHC1+)] were calculated for semi-automated (MembraneQuant) analysis. Concordance between microscopic IHC scoring and 3DHISTECH MembraneQuant semi-automated scoring in the calibration dataset showed a Kappa value of 0.77 (standard error 0.09). Microscopic IHC and MembraneQuant image analysis for the detection of amplification yielded a sensitivity of 100% for both and a specificity of 56% and 61%, respectively. In the validation set of IHC 2+ cases, only 13 of 77 cases (17%) had discordant results between microscopic and MembraneQuant images, and various artifacts limiting the interpretation of HER2 IHC, including cytoplasmic/granular staining and crush artifact were noted. Semi-automated analysis using WSI and microscopic evaluation yielded similar HER2 IHC scores, demonstrating the potential utility of this tool for interpretation in clinical practice and subsequent accurate treatment. In this study, it was shown that semi-automatic HER2 IHC interpretation provides an objective approach to a test known to be quite subjective.