HER2-targeted therapies have transformed the management of advanced or recurrent serous endometrial cancer (EC), leading to an increased clinical demand for HER2 testing. Despite its adoption in select academic centers, the global extent of such tumor testing is unclear. In this study, we report on the initial two-year experience of HER2 testing at a major academic center with a reference gynecologic oncology service and biomarker reference laboratory. All patients who underwent HER2 testing based on physician discretion, reflex HER2 testing, and reference laboratory requests were included. From February 2021 to October 2023, HER2 testing was performed on 192 tumor tissue samples from 180 EC patients. Serous carcinoma constituted 52% of samples, reflecting diagnostic challenges and limited therapeutic options for advanced EC. HER2 positivity was found in 28% of all cases and 30% of p53-aberrant cases. An immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 3+ was found in 15% of samples, while IHC 2+ was found in 45% (13% IHC 2+/ISH+ and 32% IHC 2+/ISH−). The newly identified ‘HER2-low’ category comprised 46% of the samples. Heterogeneity was noted in 42% of HER2-positive cases, with complex patterns in 3%. NGS and HER2 IHC-FISH showed a 24% discordance, attributed to intratumoral heterogeneity, tumor cellularity, a small number of amplified cells, and the HER2/CEP17 ratio near the cut-off. This study offers real-world insights into HER2 testing in EC, highlighting the challenges and underscoring the need for standardized guidelines in specimen handling, proficiency testing, and scoring criteria to enhance patient management and therapeutic decision-making.

New therapies are being developed for breast cancer and in this process some "old" biomarkers are re-utilized and given a new purpose. It is not always recognized that, by changing a biomarker's intended use, a new biomarker assay is created. The Ki-67 biomarker is typically assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) to provide a proliferative index in breast cancer. Canadian laboratories assessed the analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy of their Ki-67 IHC laboratory developed tests (LDTs), of relevance for the LDTs' clinical utility. Canadian clinical IHC laboratories enrolled in the Canadian Biomarker Quality Assurance (CBQA) Pilot Run for Ki-67 in breast cancer by invitation. The Dako Ki-67 IHC pharmDx assay was employed as a study reference assay. The Dako central laboratory (USA) was the reference laboratory. Participants received unstained slides of breast cancer tissue microarrays (TMAs) with 32 cases and performed their in-house Ki-67 assay. The results were assessed using QuPath, an open-source software for bio-image analysis. Positive percent agreement (PPA, sensitivity) and negative percent agreement (NPA, specificity) were calculated against the Dako Ki-67 IHC pharmDx assay for 5%, 10%, 20% and 30% cut-offs. Overall, PPA and NPA varied depending on the selected cut-off; participants were more successful with 5% and 10%, than with 20% and 30% cut-offs. Only four out of 16 laboratories had robust IHC protocols with acceptable PPA for all cut-offs. The lowest PPA for the 5% cut-off was 85%, for 10% was 63%, for 20% was 14%, and for 30% was 13%. The lowest NPA for the 5% cut-off was 50%, for 10% was 33%, for 20% was 50%, and for 30% was 57%. Despite many years of international efforts to standardize IHC testing for Ki-67 in breast cancer, our results indicate that Canadian clinical LDTs have a wide analytical sensitivity range and poor agreement for 20% and 30% cut-offs. The poor agreement was not due to the readout, but rather due to IHC protocol conditions. IKWG recommendations related to Ki-67 IHC standardization cannot take full effect without reliable fit-for-purpose reference materials that are required for the initial assay calibration, assay performance monitoring, and proficiency testing.

Ki67, a marker of cellular proliferation, is commonly assessed in surgical pathology laboratories. In breast cancer, Ki67 is an established prognostic factor with higher levels associated with worse long-term survival. However, Ki67 IHC is considered of limited clinical use in breast cancer management largely due to issues related to standardization and reproducibility of scoring across laboratories. Recently, both the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada have approved the use of abemaciclib (CDK4/6 inhibitor) for patients with HR+/HER2: high-risk early breast cancers in the adjuvant setting. Health Canada and the FDA have included a Ki67 proliferation index of ≥20% in the drug monograph. The approval was based on the results from monarchE, a phase III clinical trial in early-stage chemotherapy-naïve, HR+, HER2 negative patients at high risk of early recurrence. The study has shown significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) with abemaciclib when combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy at two years. Therefore, there is an urgent need by the breast pathology and medical oncology community in Canada to establish national guideline recommendations for Ki67 testing as a predictive marker in the context of abemaciclib therapy consideration. The following recommendations are based on previous IKWG publications, available guidance from the monarchE trial and expert opinions. The current recommendations are by no means final or comprehensive, and their goal is to focus on its role in the selection of patients for abemaciclib therapy. The aim of this document is to guide Canadian pathologists on how to test and report Ki67 in invasive breast cancer. Testing should be performed upon a medical oncologist’s request only. Testing must be performed on treatment-naïve tumor tissue. Testing on the core biopsy is preferred; however, a well-fixed resection specimen is an acceptable alternative. Adhering to ASCO/CAP fixation guidelines for breast biomarkers is advised. Readout training is strongly recommended. Visual counting methods, other than eyeballing, should be used, with global rather than hot spot assessment preferred. Counting 100 cells in at least four areas of the tumor is recommended. The Ki67 scoring app developed to assist pathologists with scoring Ki67 proposed by the IKWG, available for free download, may be used. Automated image analysis is very promising, and laboratories with such technology are encouraged to use it as an adjunct to visual counting. A score of 30 is more robust. The task force recommends that the results are best expressed as a continuous variable. The appropriate antibody clone and staining protocols to be used may take time to address. For the time being, the task force recommends having tonsils/+pancreas on-slide control and enrollment in at least one national/international EQA program. Analytical validation remains a pending goal. Until the data become available, using local ki67 protocols is acceptable. The task force recommends participation in upcoming calibration and technical validation initiatives.

MLH1/PMS2 loss due to MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (MLH1-PHM) is the most common cause of mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency in endometrial cancer (EC). This study aimed to determine the proportion of MLH1-deficient EC with PHM, assess the impact of the reflex MLH1-PHM testing strategy, and evaluate the associated costs within the publicly funded Canadian healthcare system. In a cohort of 2504 EC samples, 534 (21.4%) exhibited dual MLH1/PMS2 loss, prompting MLH1-PHM testing. Among 418 cases with available testing results, 404 (96.7%) were MLH1-hypermethylated, while 14 (3.3%) were non-methylated. The incidence of MLH1 non-methylated cases in our cohort was 14/2504 (0.56%) of all ECs, underscoring the prevalence of hypermethylation-driven MLH1/PMS2 loss in ECs universally screened for MMR deficiency. Reflex MLH1-PHM testing incurs substantial costs and resource utilization. Assay cost is CAD 231.90 per case, amounting to CAD 123,834.60 for 534 cases, with 30 tests needed per additional candidate for MLH1 germline analysis (CAD 6957.00 per candidate). This raises a provocative question: can we assume that the majority of the MLH1-deficient ECs are due to PHM and forgo further testing in healthcare systems with finite resources? It is imperative to assess resource utilization efficiency and explore optimized approaches that encompass clinical correlation, family history and judicious utilization of methylation testing to ensure it is provided only to those who stand to benefit from it.

Objective The International Gynecologic Cancer Society (IGCS) offers multidisciplinary conferences to underserved communities. Mentor pathologists have become an integral part of these tumor boards, as pathology services in low-to-middle-income countries are often inadequate and disjointed. The IGCS Pathology Working Group conducted a survey to assess barriers to quality pathology services in low-to-middle-income countries and identified potential solutions. Methods A 69-question cross-sectional survey assessing different aspects of pathology services was sent to 15 IGCS Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) training sites in Africa, Asia, Central America, and the Caribbean. Local gynecologic oncologists distributed the survey to their pathology departments for review. The responses were tabulated in Microsoft Excel. Results Responses were received from nine training sites: five sites in Africa, two in Asia, one in Central America, and one in the Caribbean. There were no pathologists with subspecialty training in gynecologic pathology. Most (7/9, 78%) surveyed sites indicated that they have limited access to online education and knowledge transfer resources. Of the eight sites that responded to the questions, 50% had an electronic medical system and 75% had a cancer registry. Synoptic reporting was used in 75% of the sites and paper-based reporting was predominant (75%). Most (6/7, 86%) laboratories performed limited immunohistochemical stains on site. None of the sites had access to molecular testing. Conclusions Initial goals for collaboration with local pathologists to improve diagnostic pathology in low- and middle-income countries could be defining minimal gross, microscopic, and reporting pathology requirements, as well as wisely designed educational programs intended to mentor local leaders in pathology. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these observations.