HER2Know Logo
HER2Know Logo
  • Tumor Types
    • Welcome to the new, updated HER2Know

      We have expanded our resource library so you can now explore content on HER2 in tumors beyond breast.

      Looking for the original HER2Know breast cancer resources?

      • Breast Cancer
        • Breast Cancer Overview
        • Breast Cancer Resources
        • IHC Atlas
        • Pathologists' Perspectives
          • Clinical Case Reviews
          • Spotlight Series
        • Knowledge Check
      • Gastric Cancer
        • Gastric Cancer Overview
        • Gastric Cancer Resources
        • Gastric Cancer IHC Atlas
      • Other Solid Tumors
        • Other Solid Tumors Overview
        • Other Solid Tumors Resources
        • Other Solid Tumors IHC Atlas
       
  • Resources
  • IHC Atlas
  • Contributors
  • In the Know
  • Subscribe
  • TUMOR TYPES
  • Breast Cancer
    • Breast Cancer Overview
    • Breast Cancer Resources
    • IHC Atlas
    • Pathologists' perspectives
    • Clinical Case Reviews
    • Spotlight Series
    • Knowledge Check
  • Gastric Cancer
    • Gastric Cancer Overview
    • Gastric Cancer Resources
    • Gastric Cancer IHC Atlas
  • Other Solid Tumors
    • Other Solid Tumors Overview
    • Other Solid Tumors Resources
    • Other Solid Tumors IHC Atlas
  • Resources
  • IHC Atlas
  • Contributors
  • In the Know
  • Subscribe
  • ...
  • Pathologists' Perspectives
  • Clinical Case Reviews
  • Consideration of pre-analytic conditions when assessing sample from metastatic sites
  • Back to Clinical Case Reviews

Consideration of pre-analytic conditions when assessing sample from metastatic sites

Case contributed by Shi Wei, MD, PhD

 
  •  LinkedIn
  • X
  • Facebook
The importance of reporting discrete HER2 IHC scores The importance of reporting discrete HER2 IHC scores

Shi Wei

MD, PhD

Case details

  • Age

    56
  • Gender

    Female

  • Tumor grade

    1 in the primary setting
  • Primary/metastatic breast cancer

    Metastatic
  • Type of breast cancer

    Invasive ductal carcinoma NOS (NST)
  • Hormone receptor status

    ER: Negative (<1% nuclear staining)
    PR: Positive (1% nuclear staining)
  • HER2 by IHC

    0 with faint, incomplete staining
  • HER2 by ISH

    Not amplified (average number of HER2
    signals per cell: 1.9; HER2/CEP17 ratio: 1.1)
  • Pre-analytic variables and technical issues

    None
  • Ki-67

    Not performed
  • Treatment received

    Mastectomy followed by adjuvant hormone therapy
  • Disease progression

    Metastasized to liver and bone 3 years after
    initial diagnosis
  • Specimen type in metastatic setting

    Core needle biopsy
  • Prior test results

    ER: Positive (91-100% nuclear staining)
    PR: Positive (81-90% nuclear staining)
    HER2 IHC: 1+
    HER2 ISH: non-amplified (average HER2
    signals per cell: 1.6; HER2/CEP17 ratio: 1.07)
    Oncotype Dx RS: 13

In this case, the patient developed liver and bone metastases three years after initial diagnosis of Grade 1 invasive ductal carcinoma. A core liver biopsy from the metastatic sample was ER-negative (<1% nuclear staining), PR-positive (1% nuclear staining), with a score of IHC 0 with faint, incomplete staining (no ISH amplification). The primary tumor had a HER2 IHC 1+ score (also ISH negative), which highlights the importance of biomarker testing throughout the course of the disease as testing results are likely to vary between primary and metastatic sites.

Case summary

A 56-year-old female was initially diagnosed with HR-positive, HER2-negative (IHC 1+), Grade 1 invasive ductal carcinoma. Three years after initial treatment with mastectomy and adjuvant hormone therapy, the cancer metastasized to liver and bone. At this stage, a core needle biopsy was performed on the metastatic site in the liver and the sample was processed for a repeat HER2 IHC testing.1

Why is it important to control pre-analytic variables for this case?

Pre-analytic variables may influence HER2 IHC results and should be considered in all specimen types from both the primary and metastatic sites.2 Deviations from standard pre-analytic variables may result in false-negative results.2-5 This is especially important when assessing HER2 IHC at the low end of the spectrum as a slight change in staining may impact treatment decisions.2,6

Pre-analytic variables should be carefully controlled, including:

Cold ischemic time and fixation

The following optimal tissue handling requirements are outlined in ASCO-CAP guidelines6:

  • Time from tissue acquisition to fixation should be as short as possible
  • Fix samples in 10% neutral buffered formalin for 6-72 hours

Cold ischemic time should ideally be under 1 hour, as prolonged cold ischemic time may change HER2 IHC status.4,5,7 Prompt fixation preserves tissue quality and avoids compromising sample integrity due to rapid protein degradation after the interruption of the blood flow.2 Over- or under-fixation may affect the degree of protein cross-linking and antigen retrieval necessary for proper assay performance.2 This effect may also lead to incorrect hybridization in ISH testing and increase the chance of false-negative or false-positive results.2

Tissue processing

The following optimal tissue handling requirements are outlined in ASCO-CAP guidelines6:

  • Section samples at 5-10 mm intervals
  • Process samples within 6 weeks of sectioning

Surgical resection specimens should be ideally sliced at 5-10 mm intervals to allow for optimal formalin penetration into the tissue; the chemical fixation should be uniform, with consistent fixative and fixation time.6

Optimally, HER2 staining should be performed on sections freshly cut from tissue blocks; however, if this is not feasible, the stored unstained sections should be stained within 6 weeks to ensure optimal preservation of antigenicity.6

Why was HER2 IHC not performed on the bone specimen in this case?

In this case, a bone biopsy was not performed for HER2 IHC testing as the access to the metastatic site on the liver was more easily achieved. If processed appropriately, bone biopsy specimens are optimal for HER2 IHC testing: however, standardization of protocols and decalcification methods is necessary to avoid altering results.

Strong acids (e.g., hydrochloric acid) may rapidly macerate tissue and cause a loss of staining.8-10 Weak acids (e.g., formic acid) are slower in action and are more widely used for decalcification since they are less likely to interfere with immunostaining.8-10 Decalcification using chelating agents (e.g., EDTA) is best for preserving histomorphology and can be reliably used for IHC or ISH.8-10 However, they may be less suitable for urgent specimens due to longer processing time.9 Time for decalcification may also vary depending on the size or type of bone specimen (e.g., core biopsy, curettage, or resection).9

It is essential to validate the duration and the method of declassification, if decalcification of a bone specimen is deemed necessary, to ensure that they do not result in clinically relevant discordance.8 Prior to placing a specimen in the decalcification solution, consider removing any soft tissue within and/or adherent to bone and submit for histology processing without declassification. Often the soft tumoral tissues removed are sufficient for biomarker testing. Moreover, small amounts of bone spicules in the bone biopsies also can be processed normally without decalcification, and do not result in difficulty in the interpretation of histology or IHC.*

What does the HER2 IHC staining indicate?

The HER2 IHC slide at 40X power of magnification shows faint/barely perceptible, incomplete membrane staining, which is found in around 5% of tumor cells.1 Based on the latest ASCO-CAP guideline update, this case is scored as IHC 0 with membrane staining that is incomplete and faint/barely perceptible in ≤10% of tumor cells.6

Figure 1. HER2 IHC with faint/barely perceptible incomplete membrane staining (40X).1

How were the results reported?1*

Invasive carcinoma (block: A1)

Estrogen receptor expression by immunohistochemistry:

Negative (<1%)

Progesterone receptor expression by immunohistochemistry:

Positive (1+ nuclear reactivity in 1% of invasive carcinoma cells)

HER2 status by immunohistochemistry:

Negative (Score 0; Membrane staining that is incomplete and is faint/barely perceptible and in less than or equal to 10% of tumor cells (0+/with membrane staining))

HER2 status by in situ hybridization (ISH):

Negative (not amplified)
Average number of HER2 signals per cell: 1.9
HER2/CEP17 ratio: 1.1

Cold ischemia and fixation times

The specimen meets requirements specified in the latest version of the ASCO-CAP guidelines. The tissue is fixed at least for 6 hours but no more than 72 hours.

Technical notes

Formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue is used. The tissue sections are stained with clone ER-SP1 for estrogen receptor, PR-IE2 for progesterone receptor, and 4B5 for HER2, using a biotin-free, polymer-based technology detection method and an automatic stainer.

Scoring for HER2 is based on the pattern and intensity of membranous staining. (Note: This assay has not been validated on decalcified tissues. If performed on a decalcified specimen, negative results should be interpreted with caution).

“Deviations from standard pre-analytic variables may result in false-negative results; this effect is especially important when assessing HER2 IHC at the low end of the spectrum as small change in staining may impact clinical decisions making.“2-6

Discussion

Accurate HER2 IHC interpretation is important to guide appropriate clinical decision making.6 Hence, it is key to carefully monitor pre-analytic variables to ensure they do not impact HER2 IHC results.

In this case, the HER2 IHC results changed from primary (IHC 1+) to metastatic breast cancer (IHC 0 with membrane staining that is incomplete and faint/barely perceptible in ≤10% of tumor cells).1 Change in HER2 status during the disease course is an observed event, occurring in about 10-30% of breast cancer cases.11-13 ASCO-CAP guidelines recommend considering HER2 IHC results on prior or concurrent primary samples (or other metastatic sites) as pre-analytic conditions may be better monitored in primary breast tissue samples than metastatic samples.6

Considerations

  • Pre-analytical variables may influence the reproducibility of HER2 IHC results2-5
  • Prompt sample fixation preserves tissue quality for optimal assay performance2
  • Keeping the cold ischemic time as short as possible is encouraged to lessen the potential reduction in HER2 IHC staining4,5
  • Validation of the decalcification method and duration should be performed to prevent clinically relevant discordance in HER2 testing results8
  • Soft tumoral tissues removed from bone specimens may be sufficient for biomarker testing; additionally, small amounts of bone spicules in the bone biopsies can be processed normally without decalcification*

You can find more information on how to approach the assessment of HER2 IHC 0 cases with faint, incomplete staining and IHC 0 without membrane staining in the Microscopy Series - Assessment of HER2 IHC in breast cancer: The lower end of HER2 expression, found here.

*These practice considerations represent the opinions of the Breast Pathology Faculty. Members of the Breast Pathology Faculty have been contracted as paid advisors through Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca and have received compensation for their time.

 

ASCO, American Society of Clinical Oncology; CAP, College of American Pathologists; CEP17, chromosome 17 centromere; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; ER, estrogen receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HR, hormone receptor; IHC, immunohistochemistry; ISH, in situ hybridization; NOS, not otherwise specified; NST, no special type; PR, progesterone receptor.

 

1. Data on file. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Basking Ridge, NJ. 2. Tozbikian G, et al. Histopathology. 2024;85(3):489-502. 3. Khoury T, et al. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2014;22(9):688-695. 4. Yildiz-Aktas IZ, et al. Mod Pathol. 2012;25(8):1098-1105. 5. Khoury T, et al. Mod Pathol. 2009;22(11):1457-1467. 6. Wolff AC, et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2023;147(9):993-1000. 7. Ivanova M, et al. Virchows Arch. 2024;484(1):3-14. 8. van Es SC, et al. Am J Surg Pathol. 2019;43(10):1355-1360. 9. Miquelestorena-Standley, et al. Mod Pathol. 2020;33:1505-1517. 10. Schrijver WA, et al. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(12):1460-1470. 11. Chen R, et al. Mod Pathol. 2020;33(12):2499-2506. 12. Schrijver WAME, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(6):568-580. 13. Anderson S, et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;201(3):437-446.

Did you find this content useful?
Help us get it right next time by liking this article

.

Explore more Clinical Case Reviews

View all

In this series of articles, the Pathology Faculty share their experience with complex clinical cases and highlight practices that help to aid consistency in HER2 IHC scoring.

View all
assessing-her2-ihc-with-cytoplasmic-staining.png

Assessing HER2 IHC with cytoplasmic staining

In this case, the HER2 IHC of a core needle biopsy specimen from an invasive breast carcinoma showed signs of edge artifact.

by Savitri Krishnamurthy, MD

 
  •  LinkedIn
  • X
  • Facebook
assessing-her2-ihc-with-edge-artifacts.png

Assessing HER2 IHC with edge artifacts

In this case, the HER2 IHC on a segmental mastectomy specimen from a primary invasive ductal carcinoma showed an unusual cytoplasmic staining pattern.

by Gary Tozbikian, MD

 
  •  LinkedIn
  • X
  • Facebook
interpreting-her2-ihc-with-an-extensive-in-situ-component.png

Interpreting HER2 IHC with an extensive in situ component

In this case, there was an extensive in situ component present along with the invasive carcinoma, and HER2 IHC scores were discordant between the two.

by Hannah Wen, MD, PhD

 
  •  LinkedIn
  • X
  • Facebook
Her2know Logo

Quick Links

  • Subscribe
  • Resources
  • Contributors

 

Breast Cancer Links

  • Breast Cancer Overview
  • Breast Cancer Resources
  • IHC Atlas
  • Clinical Case Reviews
  • Spotlight Series
  • Knowledge Check

 

Gastric Cancer Links

  • Gastric Cancer Overview
  • Gastric Cancer Resources

About Us

  • Contact Us
  • Request Medical Follow-Up
  • AstraZeneca
  • AZ Medical
  • Daiichi Sankyo Company
  • DSI Medical
  • Your Privacy Choices

Legal

  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookie Preferences
  • Legal Notices & Terms of Use
  • Consumer Health Data Privacy Notice
.
Daiichi-Sankyo - AstraZeneca Footer

©2025 Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and AstraZeneca
PP-US-8201a-2248, PP-US-8201a-1849, PP-US-8201a-2036, US-84238, US-93987, US-102659 11/25

HER2Know Logo

Request an AstraZeneca Medical Affairs Representative Follow-Up

Welcome to HER2Know

This website is intended to help healthcare professionals practicing in the United States find and access scientifically balanced, evidence-based, and peer-led information and professional resources in support of HER2 IHC evaluation. The dissemination of this information may be subject to different medical and regulatory requirements in other countries. This information is provided for educational purposes only. It is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual patients. Are you a healthcare professional practicing in the United States?

I am a Daiichi Sankyo Company or AstraZeneca authorized person

What is a Daiichi Sankyo Company or AstraZeneca authorized person?

This website is only intended for healthcare professionals practicing in the United States and authorized Daiichi Sankyo Company or AstraZeneca personnel. US Headquarters personnel and US Field Medical personnel are authorized to browse and search the database for their own background knowledge and insight. This website is not intended for use by US Field Sales personnel. None of the content of this site should be directly linked or distributed without approval.

Self Certification Buttons
No, take me to AstraZeneca.com Self Certification Buttons