SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19 disease) can induce systemic vascular involvement contributing to morbidity and mortality. SARS-CoV-2 targets epithelial and endothelial cells through the ACE2 receptor. The anatomical involvement of the coronary tree is not explored yet. Cardiac autopsy tissue of the entire coronary tree (main coronary arteries, epicardial arterioles/venules, epicardial capillaries) and epicardial nerves were analyzed in COVID-19 patients (n = 6). All anatomical regions were immunohistochemically tested for ACE2, TMPRSS2, CD147, CD45, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD68 and IL-6. COVID-19 negative patients with cardiovascular disease (n = 3) and influenza A (n = 6) served as controls. COVID-19 positive patients showed strong ACE2 / TMPRSS2 expression in capillaries and less in arterioles/venules. The main coronary arteries were virtually devoid of ACE2 receptor and had only mild intimal inflammation. Epicardial capillaries had a prominent lympho-monocytic endotheliitis, which was less pronounced in arterioles/venules. The lymphocytic-monocytic infiltrate strongly expressed CD4, CD45, CD68. Peri/epicardial nerves had strong ACE2 expression and lympho-monocytic inflammation. COVID-19 negative patients showed minimal vascular ACE2 expression and lacked endotheliitis or inflammatory reaction. ACE2 / TMPRSS2 expression and lymphomonocytic inflammation in COVID-19 disease increases crescentically towards the small vessels suggesting that COVID-19-induced endotheliitis is a small vessel vasculitis not involving the main coronaries. The inflammatory neuropathy of epicardial nerves in COVID-19 disease provides further evidence of an angio- and neurotrophic affinity of SARS-COV2 and might potentially contribute to the understanding of the high prevalence of cardiac complications such as myocardial injury and arrhythmias in COVID-19. No external funding was necessary for this study.

The gold standard of HER2 status assessment in breast cancer is still debated. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in-situ technology as fluorescent-labeled methodology (FISH) can be influenced by pre-analytical factors, assay-conditions and interpretation of test results. We retrospectively conducted this quality control study and analyzed HER2 test results in breast cancer within the routine diagnostic service in a single institution over a period of 12 years. We addressed the question how stable and concordant IHC and FISH methods are and whether HER2 positivity rate has changed over this period.

Gene expression profiles provide important information about the biology of breast tumors and can be used to develop prognostic tests. However, the implementation of quantitative RNA-based testing in routine molecular pathology has not been accomplished, so far. The EndoPredict assay has recently been described as a quantitative RT-PCR-based multigene expression test to identify a subgroup of hormone–receptor-positive tumors that have an excellent prognosis with endocrine therapy only. To transfer this test from bench to bedside, it is essential to evaluate the test–performance in a multicenter setting in different molecular pathology laboratories. In this study, we have evaluated the EndoPredict (EP) assay in seven different molecular pathology laboratories in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. A set of ten formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumors was tested in the different labs, and the variance and accuracy of the EndoPredict assays were determined using predefined reference values. Extraction of a sufficient amount of RNA and generation of a valid EP score was possible for all 70 study samples (100%). The EP scores measured by the individual participants showed an excellent correlation with the reference values, respectively, as reflected by Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from 0.987 to 0.999. The Pearson correlation coefficient of all values compared to the reference value was 0.994. All laboratories determined EP scores for all samples differing not more than 1.0 score units from the pre-defined references. All samples were assigned to the correct EP risk group, resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 100%, a concordance of 100%, and a kappa of 1.0. Taken together, the EndoPredict test could be successfully implemented in all seven participating laboratories and is feasible for reliable decentralized assessment of gene expression in luminal breast cancer.

NY‐ESO‐1 is a cancer testis antigen expressed in various malignancies and testicular germ cells. Because of its capacity to induce specific humoral and cellular immunity in patients with NY‐ESO‐1‐positive carcinomas, it represents a promising target for cancer immunotherapy. In breast cancer, NY‐ESO‐1‐mRNA was reported in up to 42%, but protein expression has not been determined to larger extent. In the present tissue microarray‐based study, primary breast cancers (n = 1,444), in situ lesion (n = 148), recurrences (n = 88), lymph node (n = 525) and distant metastases (n = 91) were studied for NY‐ESO‐1 expression by immunohistochemistry. NY‐ESO‐1‐protein expression was compared with mRNA expression by real‐time PCR. NY‐ESO‐1‐protein was detected in 3.1% (4/128) in situ lesions and in 2.1% (28/1355) invasive breast cancer. There were 1.8% (9/493) NY‐ESO‐1‐positive lymph node and 5.1% (4/78) positive distant metastases. NY‐ESO‐1 was more frequently expressed in grade 3 (4.9%) than in grade 2 (0.8%) and grade 1 (0.5%) carcinomas (p < 0.0001). Presence of tumor‐infiltrating CD8+ T‐cells correlated with NY‐ESO‐1 (p < 0.0001) on the tissue microarray. On randomly selected large sections, 4 out of 9 NY‐ESO‐1‐positive tumors displayed a brisk infiltrate of CD79a+ plasmocytes/B‐cells, but none of 10 NY‐ESO‐1‐negative tumors (p < 0.05). NY‐ESO‐1‐mRNA expression was detected in frozen samples of NY‐ESO‐1‐protein positive (n = 6) and negative breast cancers (n = 8) and in normal testis. Comparison between mRNA and protein expression revealed that only breast cancers with NY‐ESO‐1‐mRNA levels comparable or higher than testis expressed NY‐ESO‐1‐protein. These findings suggest that NY‐ESO‐1‐positive breast cancers represent a small subset of poorly differentiated tumors with evidence of cellular and humoral immune response.

The latest guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) to test Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer after being revised in 2008 underwent a second modification in October 2013. The modification includes changes in cut-offs: 10% strong membranous staining for score 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC) (previously 30%) and using the ratio of >2 or absolute gene-copy-number (6 or more) alone or in combination with each other by in-situ-hybridisation technology (previously >2.2 and average copy-number of 6 or more). Hereby we addressed the question, which impact the modified cut-offs had on overall HER2-positivity in a single institution. We prospectively analysed 617 consecutive diagnostic breast-cancer cases which underwent double HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in-situ hybridisation (FISH), using the modified 2013 ASCO/CAP-guidelines for one year (October 2013–October 2014). Results were compared with HER2-test results on 1,528 consecutive diagnostic breast-cancer cases from two previous years (2011–2012), using the 2008 ASCO/CAP guidelines, also tested with IHC and FISH in each case. Between October 2013 and October 2014, overall HER2-positivity was 15.8% (98 of 617 cases were either IHC 3+ or FISH amplified). 79 of 617 cases (13%) were IHC 3+, 96 of 617 cases (15.5%) were FISH amplified. Equivocal cases were seen in 25 of 617 cases (4.1%). 22 of 25 equivocal cases (88%) in 2013–2014 were IHC 1+ or 2+. In 13 equivocal cases, there was a repeated IHC/FISH testing: 2 of 13 cases (15%) became FISH amplified, 1 of 13 cases (7.5%) became IHC 3+. In 2011–2012, overall HER2-positivity (IHC/FISH) was 13.8% (211 of 1,528 cases). 185 of 1,528 cases (12%) were 3+ on IHC, 181 of 1,522 cases (12%) were amplified by FISH. Six of 1,528 cases were equivocal by FISH, and interpreted as non-amplified (0.3%). Applying the modified ASCO/CAP guidelines from 2013 resulted in an increase (2%) in overall HER2-positivity rate compared to overall-HER2-positivity rate using the 2008 ASCO/CAP guidelines. The increased positivity rate was mainly due to more FISH-positive cases (3.5% more than until 2013). The high rate of equivocal cases (4.1%) did not contribute to increase in overall HER2-positivity, but resulted in delay in definitive HER2-status.

Several multigene expression-based tests offering prognostic and predictive information in hormone-receptor positive early breast cancer were established during the last years. These tests provide prognostic information on distant recurrences and can serve as an aid in therapy decisions. We analyzed the recently validated reverse-transcription-quantitative-real-time PCR-based multigene-expression Endopredict (EP)-test on 34 hormone-receptor positive breast-cancer cases and compared the EP scores with the Oncotype DX Recurrence-scores (RS) obtained from the same cancer samples. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded invasive breast-cancer tissues from 34 patients were analyzed by the EP-test. Representative tumor blocks were analyzed with Oncotype DX prior to this study. Tumor tissue was removed from unstained slides, total-RNA was isolated and EP-analysis was performed blinded to Oncotype DX results. Extraction of sufficient amounts of RNA and generation of valid EP-scores were possible for all 34 samples. EP classified 11 patients as low-risk and 23 patients as high-risk. RS Score defined 15 patients as low-risk, 10 patients as intermediate-risk in and 9 patients as high-risk. Major-discrepancy occurred in 6 of 34 cases (18%): Low-risk RS was classified as high-risk by EP in 6 cases. Combining the RS intermediate-risk and high-risk groups to a common group, the concordance between both tests was 76%. Correlation between continuous EP and RS-scores was moderate (Pearson-coefficient: 0.65 (p<0.01). We observed a significant but moderate concordance (76%) and moderate correlation (0.65) between RS and EP Score. Differences in results can be explained by different weighting of biological motives covered by the two tests. Further studies are needed to explore the clinical relevance of discrepant test results with respect of outcome.