Discordance of the PAM50 Intrinsic Subtypes Compared with Immunohistochemistry-Based Surrogate in Breast Cancer Patients: Potential Implication of Genomic Alterations of Discordance
- Author:
Hee Kyung KIM
1
;
Kyung Hee PARK
;
Youjin KIM
;
Song Ee PARK
;
Han Sang LEE
;
Sung Won LIM
;
Jang Ho CHO
;
Ji Yeon KIM
;
Jeong Eon LEE
;
Jin Seok AHN
;
Young Hyuck IM
;
Jong Han YU
;
Yeon Hee PARK
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Breast neoplasms; PAM50; Immunohistochemistry
- MeSH: Breast Neoplasms; Breast; Classification; Fluorescence; Genes, Neoplasm; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; In Situ Hybridization; Methods; Phenobarbital; Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
- From:Cancer Research and Treatment 2019;51(2):737-747
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: We aimed to analyze the discordance between immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based surrogate subtyping and PAM50 intrinsic subtypes and to assess overall survival (OS) according to discordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 607 patients were analyzed. Hormone receptor (HR) expression was evaluated by IHC, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression was analyzed by IHC and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization. PAM50 intrinsic subtypes were determined according to 50 cancer genes using the NanoString nCounter Analysis System. We matched concordant tumor as luminal A and HR+/HER2–, luminal B and HR+/HER2+, HR–/HER2+ and HER2–enriched, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and normal- or basal-like. We used Ion Ampliseq Cancer Panel v2 was used to identify the genomic alteration related with discordance. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS. RESULTS: In total, 233 patients (38.4%) were discordant between IHC-based subtype and PAM50 intrinsic subtype. Using targeted sequencing, we detected somatic mutation–related discordant breast cancer including the VHL gene in the HR+/HER2– group (31% in concordant group, 0% in discordant group, p=0.03) and the IDH and RET genes (7% vs. 12%, p=0.02 and 0% vs. 25%, p=0.02, respectively) in the TNBC group. Among the luminal A/B patients with a discordant result had significantly worse OS (median OS, 73.6 months vs. not reached; p < 0.001), and among the patients with HR positivity, the basal-like group as determined by PAM50 showed significantly inferior OS compared to other intrinsic subtypes (5-year OS rate, 92.2% vs. 75.6%; p=0.01). CONCLUSION: A substantial portion of patients showed discrepancy between IHC subtype and PAM50 intrinsic subtype in our study. The survival analysis demonstrated that current IHC-based classification could mislead the treatment and result in poor outcome. Current guidelines for IHC might be updated accordingly.
