Take a look at the Recent articles

Targeting HER-2/Neu In Serous Endometrial Cancer: A Review

Kesterson PJ

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania

E-mail : bhuvaneswari.bibleraaj@uhsm.nhs.uk

Tyrie NK

Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania

Warrick J

Department of Pathology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania

Newell J

Department of Pathology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania

Hossler C

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania

Rebecca Phaeton

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania

DOI: 10.15761/FWH.1000117

Article
Article Info
Author Info
Figures & Data

Abstract

Serous endometrial cancer is a clinically aggressive type of uterine cancer, responsible for a disproportionate incidence of advanced stage disease, recurrences and deaths. Serous endometrial cancers are characterized by alteration of p53, STK15, p16, and HER2. The purpose of this review is to describe the current understanding of the role of the HER-2/neu pathway in the carcinogenesis of serous endometrial cancer, to explore the rationale for, and efficacy of targeting the HER-2/neu receptor in the treatment of these tumors.

Introduction

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, with over 50,000 cases diagnosed annually, resulting in approximately 8,000 deaths [1]. Endometrial cancer is classically categorized as type I or type II tumors, corresponding to endometrioid and non-endometrioid histologic types, respectively. A majority of endometrial cancers are type I, which are often well differentiated, confined to the uterus, cured with hysterectomy, and associated with excellent prognosis [2]. Type II tumors include serous and clear cell histologic types, and they tend to be clinically aggressive tumors that are associated with advanced stage at diagnosis and chemo resistance. Despite comprising only, a minority of all endometrial cancers, type II tumors are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of endometrial cancer-related recurrences and deaths [3-6]. Secondary to the poor outcomes associated with serous endometrial cancer, novel targeted therapies that are effective are needed.

Serous endometrial cancers are characterized by alteration of p53, STK15, p16, and HER2. The purpose of this review is to describe the current understanding of the role of the HER-2/neu pathway in the carcinogenesis of serous endometrial cancer, to explore the rationale for, and efficacy of targeting the HER-2/neu receptor in the treatment of these tumors.

HER-2/neu pathway

HER-2 (also termed ErbB2) is a member of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) family. These are a group of transmembrane growth factor receptors with tyrosine kinase activity, which activate a variety of second messenger systems and downstream signaling pathways which regulate cell proliferation, migration, survival and differentiation [7,8]. The EGFR receptors initiate signaling after dimerization with other EGFR members in response to ligand binding. The mechanisms by which HER-2 induces transformation and promotes tumorigenesis is not fully elucidated. Proposed mechanism includes: PI2Kinase/Akt activation, src kinase activation, and upregulation of cyclin d1 and degradation of p27, regulators of the cell cycle [9-14]. In addition to other pathways being activated, there is also extensive crosstalk between pathways. It is likely that tumorigenesis represents the culmination of a multitude of aberrations in and amongst various pathways and signals. While much of the research implicating HER-2/neu in tumor development is in breast cancer, these may represent driver mutations in other malignancies, including endometrial cancer.

Prognostic significance of HER-2/neu expression in serous endometrial cancer

The prognostic significance of HER-2 expression in endometrial cancer has been investigated in retrospective studies. In an evaluation of endometrial cancer specimens from nearly 250 patients treated at the Mayo Clinic, Hetzel et al noted “strong” HER-2/neu IHC staining in 15% [15]. This HER-2/neu over expression was associated with a worse Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS). Only a minority of specimens evaluated were non-endometrioid histology. In a study of nearly 500 patients with endometrial cancer, including 58 with serous histology, Morrison et al noted a relatively high rate of HER2 expression and amplification, 43% and 29%, respectively, when compared to well-differentiated endometrioid type tumors [16]. Patients with tumors which overexpressed and/or demonstrated HER2 amplification, had a worse PFS and OS. This association with HER-2 positivity and worse outcomes persisted when evaluating only grade 3 tumors. Researchers from Mayo Clinic and UCLA also noted a higher incidence of HER2 positivity in type II tumors compared to type I endometrial cancers (17% versus 1%) [17]. However, in patients with type II cancers, this HER-2 amplification was not statistically significantly associated with a worse overall survival (18 months versus 29 months, P=0.113). Slomovitz et al. in their study of uterine papillary serous cancer, noted a similar incidence of HER-2 overexpression (18%) in uterine papillary serous carcinoma specimens [18]. However, in their study, HER-2 overexpression was associated with a poorer overall survival (18 months versus 48 months, P value 0.008). Diaz-Montes and colleagues at Johns Hopkins, in their analysis of 25 patients with uterine serous carcinoma, reported a worse survival associated with HER-2/neu overexpression. However, this association was most likely secondary to the advanced stage at diagnosis associated with HER-2/neu positivity versus HER-2/neu negative status (75% stage III or IV versus 15% stage III or IV, respectively) [19]. A more recent post hoc analysis of HER-2 overexpression and gene amplification of tumor samples came from the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 177, a prospective randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cisplatin versus doxorubicin, cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced and/or recurrent endometrial cancer. In this study, HER-2 overexpression was more common in serous tumors (61% versus 41%) while HER-2 amplification was not more common in serous tumors [20]. There was no clear evidence that women with HER-2 amplified or overexpressed tumors had an improved survival with the addition of paclitaxel to cytotoxic doublet therapy, although the power to detect clinically meaningful differences was low.

HER-2/neu targeted therapy in endometrial cancer

There are clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of HER-2/neu targeted therapy in endometrial cancer. GOG 229D was a phase II trial evaluating lapatinib, a dual inhibitor of EGFR and HER-2 tyrosine kinase activity, in 30 patients with persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer, including 7 patients with serous carcinoma [21]. HER-2/neu expression was rare (12% of pre-treatment biopsies). Twenty-one patients had progressive disease, one was indeterminate for response, one had a partial response, and 7 had stable disease. This lack of clinical activity was concluded to be, at least in part, explained by the unselected patient population, i.e. lacking HER-2 expression. The GOG has investigated trastuzumab, a HER-2/neu targeted monoclonal antibody, as a single agent in the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer in a phase II trial [22]. Women with stage III, IV or recurrent endometrial cancer were treated with weekly trastuzumab until progression or unacceptable adverse effects. Tumors were required to have HER2 overexpression (initially in trial) or HER-2 amplification. Of 33 eligible patients treated, 18 had increasing disease, 12 had stable disease, and 3 were indeterminate for tumor response. Median progression free survival was less than two months. In contrast, there are reports of clinical responses in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer [23-25].   

These inconsistencies are likely attributable to several factors across studies. One such factor is the relative rarity of serous histology, making it difficult to establish a large enough study to reach statistical significance. Another is the histologic heterogeneity of tumors and the means of determining HER-2 positivity. Furthermore, it has also been difficult to weigh the impact on prognosis of various risk factors, individually and synergistically. Overall, there has been a lack of effective therapies and the consequent historically short duration of responses in advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer highlights the difficulty in assessing responses to new therapies as well as the need for new treatment approaches.

Defining HER2 ‘positivity’ in serous endometrial cancer

Laboratory evaluation of HER2 overexpression and amplification, and its association with response to trastuzumab, are well established for invasive breast cancer. Early trials of trastuzumab were performed exclusively on women with HER-2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry [26,27]. This testing modality was chosen based on studies of gene amplification by Southern blot hybridization, which showed strong correlation with HER2 overexpression [28]. Response in this subset of women was favorable, with a reduced recurrence and mortality. Criteria for HER-2 immunohistochemically evaluation in these early trials was graded semi quantitatively as 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+, with 2+ and 3+ being considered HER2-positive and thus eligible for the given trial. Importantly, subsequent retrospective analysis of these patients showed that only women with 3+ overexpression or HER2 gene amplification saw benefit from trastuzumab [29]. Laboratory evaluation of HER2 in invasive breast cancer has become commonplace in determining if a woman is eligible for treatment with trastuzumab. Acceptable testing methods include immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. To promote consistency in testing among laboratories, The American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) have developed guidelines for HER2 evaluation, first in 2007 and most recently in 2013 [30,31]. Current (2013) guidelines for immunohistochemistry state HER2 expression is to be graded as 0, 1+, 2+, or 3+, similar to grading in the early trials. In short, 0 shows no expression, 1+ weak discontinuous membranous expression, 2+ weak but complete membranous expression in >10% of cells, and 3+ strong complete membranous expression in >10% of tumors cells. Results of 0 and 1+ are considered negative, 3+ positive, and 2+ equivocal. Equivocal results are reflexed to amplification testing, which may be done by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or chromogeneic in situ hybridization. By either modality, HER2:CEP17 >2.0 is considered positive for amplification, as is >6 HER2 signals per cell. Laboratories may also omit immunohistochemically testing, and opt for ISH as first line testing.

Approximately 20% of invasive breast cancers are HER2-positive [32,33]. A majority of HER2-positive cases of invasive breast cancer exceed the minimal laboratory thresholds. By immunohistochemistry, 3+ cases generally show striking expression in the cell membranes of nearly all tumor cells. High-level gene amplification (HER2:CEP17 ≥ 5) is present in ~50% of HER2-positive cases overall, and >75% of cases with 3+ HER2 overexpression [32]. Amplification level correlates with expression level. Agreement between immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization is high. Current standards dictate >95% concordance should be seen between immunohistochemistry positive/negative results and in situ hybridization results [31].

The laboratory experience with HER2 testing in serous endometrial carcinoma has been more challenging. In a genomic characterization of endometrial cancer specimens, including 66 serous types, by the Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, 25% of serous or serous-like tumors had HER-2 amplified with protein overexpression [34]. Most studies have been small (range: n=3 to 108), because of the rarity of the disease (reviewed in [35]). Studies have shown 14-65% of cases are HER2-positive by immunohistochemistry, though comparison is limited by differing criteria and small patient numbers for several series. HER2 amplification rates are also variable, being identified in 0-71% of cases, though the largest studies have shown amplification in 10-35%.

The largest studies offer somewhat contradictory evidence, and bear discussion. Using tissue microarrays constructed from 75 high grade serous endometrial carcinomas, Xu et al showed 12% had HER2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry and 12% had HER2 amplification by FISH [36]. Concordance between immunohistochemistry and FISH was high, with discrepancy seen in only 5% of cases. Criteria for immunohistochemistry positivity was considered 2+ and 3+. Of cases with HER2 amplification by FISH, 67% had HER2:CEP17 >2.2, though the exact ratios were not reported. In a separate tissue microarray study on 69 high grade serous endometrial carcinomas, Mentrikoski et al. similarly showed 13% of women had HER2 amplification by FISH [37]. However, overexpression was considerably higher in this study, seen in 40% of cases using 2013 ASCO/CAP guidelines. Despite this lack of concordance, 100% of tumors showing HER2 amplification had 3+ overexpression. In a retrospective review of whole tissue sections on 108 endometrial serous and mixed serous/endometrioid carcinomas, Buza et al. showed 35% of evaluable cases had HER2 amplification by FISH, and 23% showed HER2 overexpression using 2013 ASCO/CAP criteria [38]. Concordance between FISH and immunohistochemistry was 86%.

The reasons for the contradictions in the studies above are challenging to decipher. The studies by Xu et al. and Mentrikoski et al. both used limited tissue microarray material, and found similar rates of HER2 amplification [36,37]. HER-2 overexpression differed significantly between these studies, possibly resulting from the different criteria used for immunohistochemically evaluation. It is striking, however, that both studies showed HER-2 overexpression in the vast majority of tissues harboring HER-2 amplification. The study by Buza et al showed differences in HER-2 amplification from both of these studies, though comparison is difficult because this study was performed on whole tissue sections. This increase in evaluated tissue area likely increased the analytical sensitivity for cases showing focal amplification. Intratumoral heterogeneity for HER-2 amplification and overexpression may thus explain some of the discrepancy. Although the study by Metrikoswki et al. was performed on tissue microarray materials, intratumoral heterogeneity was further investigated on whole tissue sections in cases found to have HER2 amplification [37]. These showed intratumoral heterogeneity for both expression and amplification in 33% of HER-2-amplified cases. Overexpression and amplification tended to occur in tandem. The study by Buzz et al (performed on whole tissue sections) similarly showed heterogenous HER-2 protein expression in 31% of all cases. The same group has also shown HER-2 amplification tends to occur in tandem with HER-2 overexpression in cases with heterogenous expression [39]. The study by Mentrikoski et al also identified six cases that overexpressed HER-2 and had trisomy 17, without amplification of HER-2. These cases suggest polysomy may be a source of HER2 overexpression, and therefore a marker of response to trastuzumab.

The studies cited above highlight important details regarding immunohistochemistry and FISH testing in high grade serous carcinomas, particularly in comparison to the experience with invasive breast cancer. First, serous endometrial carcinomas with HER-2 amplification tend to show strong HER-2 overexpression. However, the pattern of HER-2 overexpression appears to differ between serous carcinoma and invasive breast cancer. While invasive breast cancers categorized as 3+ by immunohistochemistry tend to have strong membranous expression in the majority of tumors cells, high grade serous carcinomas are more prone to focal strong expression, which would be considered 3+ by current ASCO/CAP guidelines. This may not correspond to amplification in many cases. It has also been shown that endometrial serous carcinomas frequently have a strong but incomplete membranous staining pattern, with no expression in the luminal aspect of the cell [38]. Such cases would not be considered positive by current ASCO/CAP criteria, but may be associated with HER-2 amplification. HER-2 expression in gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma has shown a similar pattern of expression, which is recognized in current protocols for this tumor site [40,41]. Future protocols for endometrial serous carcinoma may include such cases as positive, though further study will be required. Second, intratumoral heterogeneity for HER-2 amplification and overexpression appears to be common in endometrial serous carcinomas, and may explain many of the contradictory findings in larger studies. This should be considered in laboratory testing for patient selection for inclusion in future trials of trastuzumab in treating endometrial serous carcinoma.

Based on the summation of data, it is the opinion of the authors of this review that HER-2 copy number evaluation is the better test to evaluate high grade endometrial serous carcinoma for inclusion in future trials. It is also imperative that future trials perform HER-2 testing on multiple areas of the tumor, in order to account for intratumoral heterogeneity of HER-2 amplification and overexpression.

Conclusions

Serous endometrial cancer is a clinically aggressive type of uterine cancer, responsible for a disproportionate incidence of advanced stage disease, recurrences and deaths. Currently available cytotoxic chemotherapies yield short-lived responses with significant systemic toxicities. Novel, effective, targeted therapies are needed. Considering the relatively frequent HER-2/neu alterations in serous endometrial cancer, its negative prognostic implications, and the success of trastuzumab in breast cancer, targeting HER-2/neu in serous endometrial cancer represents a plausible and attractive treatment strategy. However, this promise has not yet been delivered. Herein, we have detailed the role of HER-2/neu in serous endometrial cancer, its potential role as a prognostic indicator, the difficulties in determining HER-2 positivity, and the outcomes of HER-2/neu targeted monotherapy (lapatinib, trastuzumab). If the full potential of HER-2/neu-directed therapy in serous endometrial cancer is to be realized, these factors must be accounted for and future trials must select patients with HER-2/neu positive tumors, as defined by rational, uniform criteria, be adequately powered to detect a meaningful response, and consideration given to incorporation of HER-2/neu monoclonal antibodies to standard platinum-based chemotherapy rather than use as a single agent. 

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer statistics CA Cancer J Clin 65: 5-29. [crossref]
  2. Bokhman JV (1983) Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 15: 10-17. [crossref] 
  3. Cirisano FD, Robboy SJ, Dodge RK, Bentley RC, Krigman HR, et al. (1999) Epidemiologic and surgicopathologic findings of papillary serous and clear cell endometrial cancers when compared to endometrioid carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 74: 385-394. [crossref]
  4. Hamilton CA, Cheung MK, Osann K, Chen L, Teng NN, et al. (2006) Uterine papillary serous and clear cell carcinomas predict for poorer survival compared to grade 3 endometrioid corpus cancers. Br J Cancer 94: 642-646. [crossref]
  5. Schwartz PE (2006) The management of serous papillary uterine cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 18: 494-499. [crossref] 
  6. Ueda SM, Kapp DS, Cheung MK, Shin JY, Osann K, et al. (2008) Trends in demographic and clinical characteristics in women diagnosed with corpus cancer and their potential impact on the increasing number of deaths. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198: 218 e1-6. [crossref]
  7. Olayioye MA (2001) Update on HER-2 as a target for cancer therapy: intracellular signaling pathways of ErbB2/HER-2 and family members. Breast Cancer Res 3: 385-389. [crossref]
  8. Burgess AW1 (2008) EGFR family: structure physiology signalling and therapeutic targets. Growth Factors 26: 263-274. [crossref] 
  9. Tokunaga E, Kimura Y, Oki E, Ueda N, Futatsugi M, et al. (2006) Akt is frequently activated in HER2/neu-positive breast cancers and associated with poor prognosis among hormone-treated patients. Int J Cancer 118: 284-289. [crossref] 
  10. Kim H, Chan R, Dankort DL, Zuo D, Najoukas M, et al. (2005) The c-Src tyrosine kinase associates with the catalytic domain of ErbB-2: implications for ErbB-2 mediated signaling and transformation. Oncogene 24: 7599-607. [crossref]
  11. Tan M, Li P, Klos KS, Lu J, Lan KH, et al. (2005) ErbB2 promotes Src synthesis and stability: novel mechanisms of Src activation that confer breast cancer metastasis. Cancer Res 65: 1858-1867. [crossref] 
  12. Timms JF, White SL, O'Hare MJ, Waterfield MD (2002) Effects of ErbB-2 overexpression on mitogenic signalling and cell cycle progression in human breast luminal epithelial cells. Oncogene 21: 6573-86. [crossref]
  13. Viglietto G, Motti ML, Bruni P, Melillo RM, D'Alessio A, et al. (2002) Cytoplasmic relocalization and inhibition of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27(Kip1) by PKB/Akt-mediated phosphorylation in breast cancer. Nat Med 8: 1136-1144. [crossref]
  14. Yang C, Ionescu-Tiba V, Burns K, Gadd M, Zukerberg L, et al. (2004) The role of the cyclin D1-dependent kinases in ErbB2-mediated breast cancer. Am J Pathol 164: 1031-1038. [crossref] 
  15. Hetzel DJ, Wilson TO, Keeney GL, Roche PC, Cha SS, et al. (1992) HER-2/neu expression: a major prognostic factor in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 47: 179-185. [crossref]
  16. Morrison C, Zanagnolo V, Ramirez N, Cohn DE, Kelbick N, et al. (2006) HER-2 is an independent prognostic factor in endometrial cancer: association with outcome in a large cohort of surgically staged patients. J Clin Oncol 24: 2376-2385. [crossref]
  17. Konecny GE, Santos L, Winterhoff B, Hatmal M, Keeney GL, et al. (2009) HER2 gene amplification and EGFR expression in a large cohort of surgically staged patients with nonendometrioid (type II) endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer 100: 89-95. [crossref]
  18. Slomovitz BM, Broaddus RR, Burke TW, Sneige N, Soliman PT, et al. (2004) Her-2/neu overexpression and amplification in uterine papillary serous carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 22: 3126-3132. [crossref] 
  19. Díaz-Montes TP, Ji H, Smith Sehdev AE, Zahurak ML, Kurman RJ, et al. (2006) Clinical significance of Her-2/neu overexpression in uterine serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 100: 139-144. [crossref] 
  20. Grushko TA, Filiaci VL, Mundt AJ, Ridderstrale K, Olopade OI, et al. (2008) An exploratory analysis of HER-2 amplification and overexpression in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 108: 3-9. [crossref]
  21. Leslie KK, Sill MW, Lankes HA, Fischer EG, Godwin AK, et al. (2012) Lapatinib and potential prognostic value of EGFR mutations in a Gynecologic Oncology Group phase II trial of persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 127: 345-350. [crossref]
  22. Fleming GF, Sill MW, Darcy KM, McMeekin DS, Thigpen JT, et al. (2010) Phase II trial of trastuzumab in women with advanced or recurrent, HER2-positive endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 116: 15-20. [crossref] 
  23. Jewell E, Secord AA, Brotherton T, Berchuck A (2006) Use of trastuzumab in the treatment of metastatic endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16: 1370-1373. [crossref] 
  24. Santin AD, Bellone S, Roman JJ, McKenney JK, Pecorelli S (2008) Trastuzumab treatment in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma overexpressing HER2/neu. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 102: 128-131. [crossref] 
  25. Villella JA, Cohen S, Smith DH, Hibshoosh H, Hershman D (2006) HER-2/neu overexpression in uterine papillary serous cancers and its possible therapeutic implications. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16: 1897-1902. [crossref]
  26. Piccart-Gebhart MJ1, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, et al. (2005) Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353: 1659-1672. [crossref] 
  27. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, Suman VJ, Geyer CE, et al. (2005) Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353: 1673-1684. [crossref]
  28. Slamon DJ, Godolphin W, Jones LA, Holt JA, Wong SG, et al. (1989) Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science 244: 707-712. [crossref] 
  29. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, et al. (2001) Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 344: 783-792. [crossref]
  30. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, et al. (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25: 118-145. [crossref]
  31. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, et al. (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31: 3997-4013. [crossref]
  32. Yaziji H, Goldstein LC, Barry TS, Werling R, Hwang H, et al. (2004) HER-2 testing in breast cancer using parallel tissue-based methods. JAMA 291: 1972-1977. [crossref] 
  33. Owens MA, Horten BC, Da Silva MM (2004) HER2 amplification ratios by fluorescence in situ hybridization and correlation with immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 6556 breast cancer tissues. Clin Breast Cancer 5: 63-69. [crossref]
  34. Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, Akbani R, Liu Y, et al. (2013) Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 497: 67-73. [crossref]
  35. Buza N, Roque DM, Santin AD (2014) HER2/neu in Endometrial Cancer: A Promising Therapeutic Target with Diagnostic Challenges. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138: 343-350. [crossref] 
  36. Xu M, Schwartz P, Rutherford T, Azodi M, Santin A, et al. (2010) HER-2/neu receptor gene status in endometrial carcinomas: a tissue microarray study. Histopathology 56: 269-273. [crossref] 
  37. Mentrikoski MJ, Stoler MH (2014) HER2 immunohistochemistry significantly overestimates HER2 amplification in uterine papillary serous carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 38: 844-851. [crossref] 
  38. Buza N, English DP, Santin AD, Hui P (2013) Toward standard HER2 testing of endometrial serous carcinoma: 4-year experience at a large academic center and recommendations for clinical practice. Mod Pathol 26: 1605-1612. [crossref]
  39. Buza N, Hui P (2013) Marked heterogeneity of HER2/NEU gene amplification in endometrial serous carcinoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 52: 1178-1186. [crossref] 
  40. Hicks DG, Whitney-Miller C (2011) HER2 testing in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers: a new therapeutic target and diagnostic challenge. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 19: 506-508. [crossref]
  41. Ross JS, Mulcahy M (2011) HER2 Testing in Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinomas: Unique Features of a Familiar Test. Gastrointest Cancer Res 4: 62-66. [crossref]

Editorial Information

Editor-in-Chief

Article Type

Review Article

Publication history

Received date: December 13, 2016
Accepted date: December 21, 2016
Published date: December 24, 2016

Copyright

© 2016 Kesterson JP. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation

Kesterson JP (2016) Targeting HER-2/Neu In Serous Endometrial Cancer: A Review. Front Womens Health 1: DOI: 10.15761/FWH.1000117

Corresponding author

Joshua P. Kesterson

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Tel: (717) 531-8144 (ext. 5); Fax: (717) 531-0007

No figures