HER2 overexpression and anti-HER2 agents represent probably the best story of success of individualized therapy in breast cancer. Due to the important therapeutic implications, the issue under the spotlight has been, since ever, the correct identification of true HER2 positivity on tissue specimens. Eligibility to anti-HER2 agents is strictly dependent on the demonstration of HER2 overexpression (by immunohistochemistry) or of HER2 gene amplification by in situ techniques (fluorescence in situ hybridization, FISH), however there are controversial issues involving cases with “equivocal” HER2 status based on conventional techniques (about 20% of specimens). In terms of HER2 expression a major debate is the presence of full-length and truncated forms of the protein and controversial clinical data have been reported on the therapeutic implications of these HER2 fragments. In terms of HER2 gene assessment, the occurrence of amplification of the chromosome 17 centromeric region (CEP17) has been proven responsible for misleading HER2 FISH results, precluding anti-HER2 based therapy to some patients. Finally HER2 activating mutations have been recently described as a biological mechanisms alternative to HER2 gene amplification. In this review we will focus on the controversies that pathologists and oncologists routinely face in the attempt to design the most tailored treatment for breast cancer patients. We will focus on the HER2 gene and on the protein, both at technical and interpretational levels.

No abstract

Primary cultures represent an invaluable tool to set up functional experimental conditions; however, creation of tissue cultures from solid tumors is troublesome and often unproductive. Several features can affect the success rate of primary cultures, including technical issues from pre-analytical procedures employed in surgical theaters and pathology laboratories. We have recently introduced a new method of collection, transfer, and preservation of surgical specimens that requires immediate vacuum sealing of excised specimens at surgical theaters, followed by time-controlled transferring at 4°C to the pathology laboratory. Here we investigate the feasibility and performance of short-term primary cell cultures derived from vacuum packed and cooled (VPAC) preserved tissues. Tissue fragments were sampled from 52 surgical specimens of tumors larger than 2 cm for which surgical and VPAC times (the latter corresponding to cold ischemia time) were recorded. Cell viability was determined by trypan blue dye-exclusion assay and hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemical stainings were performed to appreciate morphological and immunophenotypical features of cultured cells. Cell viability showed a range of 84–100% in 44 out of 52 (85%) VPAC preserved tissues. Length of both surgical and VPAC times affected cell viability: the critical surgical time was set around 1 hour and 30 minutes, while cells preserved a good viability when kept for about 24 hours of vacuum at 4°C. Cells were maintained in culture for at least three passages. Immunocytochemistry confirmed the phenotype of distinct populations, that is, expression of cytokeratins in epithelioid cells and of vimentin in spindle cells. Our results suggest that VPAC preserved tissues may represent a reliable source for creation of primary cell cultures and that a careful monitoring of surgical and cold ischemia times fosters a good performance of primary tissue cultures.

BackgroundThe group of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers (both luminal-A and -B) behaves differently from the ER-negative group. At least in early follow-up, ER expression influences positively patients' prognosis. This low aggressive biology flattens out the differences of clinical management. Thus we aimed to produce a prognostic index specific for ER-positive (ERPI) cancers that could be of aid for clinical decision.Patients and methodsThe test set comprised 495 consecutive ER-positive breast cancers. Tumor size, number of metastatic lymph nodes and androgen receptor expression were the only independent variables related to disease-specific survival. These variables were used to create the ERPI, which was applied to the entire test set and to selected subpopulations (grade 2 (G2)-tumors, luminal-A and -B breast cancers). A series of 581 ER-positive breast cancers, collected from another hospital, was used to validate ERPI.ResultsIn the test population, 96.9% of patients classified as ERPI-good showed a good prognosis compared with 79.6% classified as ERPI-poor (P < 0.001). ERPI effectively discriminated outcome in luminal-A and luminal-B and in G2-tumors. In the validation series, the ERPI maintained its value.ConclusionERPI is a practical tool in refining the prediction of outcome of patients with ER-positive breast cancer.

According to our systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines), only 37 vulvar squamous cell carcinomas (VSCCs) were diagnosed during pregnancy (age range: 17–41 years). The tumor size range was 0.3–15 cm. The treatment was performed after (14/37, 38%), before (10/37, 27%), or before-and-after delivery (11/37, 30%). We found that 21/37 (57%) cases were stage I, 2 II (5%), 11 III (30%), and 3 IVB (8%). HPV-related features (condylomas/warts; HPV infection; high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) were reported in 11/37 (30%) cases. We also found that 9/37 (24%) patients had inflammatory conditions (lichen sclerosus/planus, psoriasis, chronic dermatitis). The time-to-recurrence/progression (12/37, 32%) ranged from 0 to 36 (mean 9) months. Eight women died of disease (22%) 2.5–48 months after diagnosis, 2 (5%) were alive with disease, and 23 (62%) were disease-free at the end of follow-up. Pregnant patients must be followed-up. Even if they are small, newly arising vulvar lesions should be biopsied, especially in women with risk factors (HPV, dermatosis, etc.). The treatment of VSCCs diagnosed in late third trimester might be delayed until postpartum. Elective cesarean section may prevent vulvar wound dehiscence. In the few reported cases, pregnancy/fetal outcomes seemed to not be affected by invasive treatments during pregnancy. However, clinicians must be careful; larger cohorts should define the best treatment. Definite guidelines are lacking, so a multidisciplinary approach and discussion with patients are mandatory.