Considering the recent advancements in the treatment of breast cancer with low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), we aimed to examine inter-laboratory variability in the assessment of HER2-low breast cancer across all Danish pathology departments.
From the Danish Breast Cancer Group, we obtained data on all women diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer in 2007-2019 who were subsequently assigned for curatively intended treatment.
Of 50,714 patients, HER2 score and status were recorded for 48,382, among whom 59.2% belonged to the HER2-low group (score 1+ or 2+ without gene amplification), 26.8% had a HER2 score of 0, and 14.0% were HER2 positive. The proportion of HER2-low cases ranged from 46.3 to 71.8% among pathology departments (P < 0.0001) and from 49.3 to 65.6% over the years (P < 0.0001). In comparison, HER2 positivity rates ranged from 11.8 to 17.2% among departments (P < 0.0001) and from 12.6 to 15.7% over the years (P = 0.005). In the eight departments with the highest number of patients, variability in HER2-low cases increased from 2011 to 2019, although the same immunohistochemical assay was used. By multivariable logistic regression, the examining department was significantly related to both HER2 score 0 and HER2 positivity (P < 0.0001) but showed greater dispersion in odds ratios in the former case (range 0.25-1.41 vs. 0.84-1.27).
Our data showed high inter-laboratory variability in the assessment of HER2-low breast cancer. The findings cast doubt on whether the current test method for HER2 is robust and reliable enough to select HER2-low patients for HER2-targeted treatment in daily clinical practice.

The classification of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression is optimized to detect HER2-amplified breast cancer (BC). However, novel HER2-targeting agents are also effective for BCs with low levels of HER2. This raises the question whether the current guidelines for HER2 testing are sufficiently reproducible to identify HER2-low BC. The aim of this multicenter international study was to assess the interobserver agreement of specific HER2 immunohistochemistry scores in cases with negative HER2 results (0, 1+, or 2+/in situ hybridization negative) according to the current American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines. Furthermore, we evaluated whether the agreement improved by redefining immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring criteria or by adding fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). We conducted a 2-round study of 105 nonamplified BCs. During the first assessment, 16 pathologists used the latest version of the ASCO/CAP guidelines. After a consensus meeting, the same pathologists scored the same digital slides using modified IHC scoring criteria based on the 2007 ASCO/CAP guidelines, and an extra \"ultralow\" category was added. Overall, the interobserver agreement was limited (4.7% of cases with 100% agreement) in the first round, but this was improved by clustering IHC categories. In the second round, the highest reproducibility was observed when comparing IHC 0 with the ultralow/1+/2+ grouped cluster (74.3% of cases with 100% agreement). The FISH results were not statistically different between HER2-0 and HER2-low cases, regardless of the IHC criteria used. In conclusion, our study suggests that the modified 2007 ASCO/CAP criteria were more reproducible in distinguishing HER2-0 from HER2-low cases than the 2018 ASCO/CAP criteria. However, the reproducibility was still moderate, which was not improved by adding FISH. This could lead to a suboptimal selection of patients eligible for novel HER2-targeting agents. If the threshold between HER2 IHC 0 and 1+ is to be clinically actionable, there is a need for clearer, more reproducible IHC definitions, training, and/or development of more accurate methods to detect this subtle difference in protein expression levels.