Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37770765›Full record

ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2024

Standardized pathology report for HER2 testing in compliance with 2023 ASCO/CAP updates and 2023 ESMO consensus statements on HER2-low breast cancer.

Mariia Ivanova, Francesca Maria Porta, Marianna D'Ercole, Carlo Pescia, Elham Sajjadi, Giulia Cursano, Elisa De Camilli, Oriana Pala, Giovanni Mazzarol, Konstantinos Venetis and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. RareOncology letters · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mariia IvanovaDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7636-1000
Francesca Maria PortaDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2841-5024
Marianna D'ErcoleDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1857-8823
Carlo PesciaDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0657-506X
Elham SajjadiDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7401-1843
Giulia CursanoDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6735-8598
Elisa De CamilliDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0668-9422
Oriana PalaDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5484-2105
Giovanni MazzarolDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7812-8499
Konstantinos VenetisDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0163-879X
Elena Guerini-RoccoDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2001-7582
Giuseppe CuriglianoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1781-2518
Giuseppe VialeDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1882-7068
Nicola FuscoDivision of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy. nicola.fusco@ieo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9101-9131
European Institute of Oncology · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the release of the DESTINY-Breast04 (DB-04) trial findings in June 2022, the field of pathology has seen a renaissance of HER2 as a predictive biomarker in breast cancer. The trial focused on patients with metastatic breast cancer who were classified as "HER2-low," i.e., those with immunohistochemistry (IHC) HER2 1 + or 2 + and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) results. The study revealed that treating these patients with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) instead of the oncologist's chosen chemotherapy led to outstanding improvements in survival. This has challenged the existing binary HER2 pathological classification system, which categorized tumors as either positive (overexpression/amplification) or negative, as per the ASCO/CAP 2018 guideline reaffirmed by ASCO/CAP 2023 guideline update. Given that DB-04 excluded patients with HER2 IHC score 0 status, the results of the ongoing DB-06 trial may shed further light on the potential benefits of T-DXd therapy for these patients. Roughly half of all breast cancers are estimated to belong to the HER2-low category, which does not represent a distinct or specific subtype of cancer. Instead, it encompasses a diverse group of tumors that exhibit clinical, morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular variations. However, HER2-low offers a distinctive biomarker status that identifies a specific therapeutic regimen (i.e., T-DXd) linked to a favorable prognosis in breast cancer. This unique association emphasizes the importance of accurately identifying these tumors. Differentiating between a HER2 IHC score 0 and score 1 + has not been clinically significant until now. To ensure accurate classification and avoid misdiagnosis, it is necessary to adopt standardized procedures, guidelines, and specialized training for pathologists in interpreting HER2 expression in the lower spectrum. Additionally, the utilization of artificial intelligence holds promise in supporting this endeavor. Here, we address the current state of the art and unresolved issues in assessing HER2-low status, with a particular emphasis on the score 0. We explore the dilemma surrounding the exclusion of HER2-zero patients from potentially beneficial therapy based on traditional HER2 testing. Additionally, we examine the clinical context, considering that DB-04 primarily involved heavily pretreated late-stage metastatic breast cancers. We also delve into emerging evidence suggesting that extrapolating HER2-low status from the original diagnosis may lead to misleading results. Finally, we provide recommendations for conducting high-quality testing and propose a standardized pathology report in compliance with 2023 ASCO/CAP updates and 2023 ESMO consensus statements on HER2-low breast cancer.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesArtificial IntelligenceBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansIn Situ HybridizationIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesBiomarkersBreast cancerHER2HER2-lowPathology report

Identifiers

PMID37770765
PMCPMC10791807
OpenAlexW4387132388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.