Skip to main content
Download PDF

Quantitative proteomic analysis of HER2 protein expression in PDAC tumors

Clinical Proteomics volume 21, Article number: 24 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with a 5-year survival rate of only 11%, necessitating identification of novel treatment paradigms. Tumor tissue specimens from patients with PDAC, breast cancer, and other solid tumor malignancies were collected and tumor cells were enriched using laser microdissection (LMD). Reverse phase protein array (RPPA) analysis was performed on enriched tumor cell lysates to quantify a 32-protein/phosphoprotein biomarker panel comprising known anticancer drug targets and/or cancer-related total and phosphorylated proteins, including HER2Total, HER2Y1248, and HER3Y1289. RPPA analysis revealed significant levels of HER2Total in PDAC patients at abundances comparable to HER2-positive (IHC 3+) and HER2-low (IHC 1+ /2+ , FISH−) breast cancer tissues, for which HER2 screening is routinely performed. These data support a critical unmet need for routine clinical evaluation of HER2 expression in PDAC patients and examination of the utility of HER2-directed antibody–drug conjugates in these patients.

Introduction

Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States [1], with a 5-year survival rate of only 11% [2]. Standard first-line treatment options include gemcitabine plus albumin-bound paclitaxel (gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel), and 5-fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) [3]. Second-line treatment with 5-FU plus liposomal irinotecan has a response rate of less than 20% with median overall survival of 6.2 months [4]. An urgent unmet need exists for identification of novel effective treatment paradigms.

Historically, HER2-directed therapy was only indicated for HER2-positive breast cancer patients, defined as those with HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+ , or IHC 2+ and positive fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH; HER2/CEP17 ratio ≥ 2.0 and HER2 copy number (CN) signals/cell ≥ 4). Recent studies have shown the analytical and technical limitations of IHC-based quantitation of HER2 protein expression in HER2 unamplified/negative tumors due to the limitations and variability of interpretation by pathologists and the lack of accuracy and precision of HER2 protein quantitation using current HER2 IHC-based assays in the HER2 unamplified setting [5,6,7]. Moreover, recent data has found that approximately 60% of patients who were previously classified as HER2-negative could be considered as HER2-low, defined as IHC 1+ /2+ and FISH-negative [8, 9]. The DESTINY-Breast04 trial (NCT03734029) evaluation of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in previously-treated HER2-low metastatic breast cancer patients revealed that treatment with HER2-directed therapy was associated with significantly longer modified progression-free survival (mPFS) and overall survival (mOS) compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy (9.9 months vs 5.1 months, and 23.4 months vs 16.8 months, respectively) [10]. Data from HER2 IHC 0 metastatic breast cancer patients in the DAISY trial (NCT04132960) also assessing T-DXd response revealed a mPFS of 4.2 months in this population, compared to 6.7 months in HER2-low and 11.1 months in HER2 3+ patients [11]. The DESTINY-Breast04 and DAISY trials have raised interest in predicting who among HER2-low patients are responders to HER2-directed therapy. Aberrant activation (phosphorylation) of the human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) receptor tyrosine kinase leads to tumor cell proliferation, migration, and survival [12]. Phosphorylated HER2 is predictive of response to HER2-directed therapeutics in breast cancer [13,14,15,16], and specifically in the I-SPY2 TRIAL to HER2-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; such as neratinib) in HER2-negative/unamplified tumors [17], and to antibody drug conjugates (ADCs; such as trastuzumab emtansine) in HER2-positive/amplified tumors [18].

The tumor microenvironment (TME) represents a complex milieu of heterogeneous cell types, including (but not limited to) tumor cells, stromal cells, immune cells, endothelial cells, and a complex extracellular matrix [19]. Several recent studies have demonstrated widespread misinterpretation [20] of gene expression signatures from heterogenous bulk tissue specimens, as several of the genes or proteins correlative with outcomes are stromally expressed [21,22,23,24,25,26]. Moreover, recent studies have shown that upfront cellular enrichment of tumor epithelium from tissue biopsies is required for accurate determination of total and phosphoprotein expression in tumor epithelium [27, 28]. Selective harvest of discrete cellular subpopulations from the complex milieu of the tumor microenvironment (TME) via laser microdissection (LMD) prior to reverse phase protein array (RPPA) analysis allows for the quantitative measurement and functional assessment of the activation state of protein drug targets and other known cancer-related proteins directly from enriched populations of microdissected tumor cells [28, 29]. IHC-based determinations of HER2 expression in the HER2-low (IHC 1+ /2+ , FISH-negative) or HER2-ultra low (IHC 0) were not analytically accurate when compared to a CLIA quantitative RPPA-based HER2 assay to determine protein expression [7]. Nearly 40% of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2 IHC 0 breast cancer tumors, and 30% of ER-negative HER2 IHC 0 breast cancer tumors expressed modest to moderate amounts of HER2 by RPPA, which approximates a 30% response rate seen with T-DXd in HER2-low patients in the DAISY trial [11].

While HER2 abundance is not routinely evaluated in PDAC patients, previous small cohort studies have shown that HER2 overexpression is observable in an estimated 11–45% of pancreatic carcinoma specimens [30], though clinical trials evaluating HER2-directed therapy have not demonstrated improved outcomes compared to standard chemotherapy [31]. Further, the discrepancy in the prevalence of HER2-positive/amplified tumors in PDAC [30, 31] may be driven by interobserver variability, necessitating the need for more quantitative and reproducible methodologies for HER2 quantification, such as by RPPA. Given the poor treatment options for pancreatic cancer and the efficacy of HER2-directed therapy in HER2-low breast cancer, the findings of RPPA analysis of LMD enriched tumors could represent a new treatment option in this patient population. Here we report RPPA-based quantitative expression and phosphorylation of HER2/3 in LMD enriched tumor samples from patients with pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, and other solid tumor malignancies.

Methods

Patient specimens

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) primary and/or metastatic tumor surgical biopsy specimens were prospectively obtained from 14 patients with PDAC, 14 patients with breast cancer, and 40 patients with other solid tumor malignancies as part of an IRB-approved Molecular Tumor Board study at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute (ISCI). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All experimental protocols involving human data in this study were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Serial tissue thin sections (8 µm) were sectioned by microtome (median = 2 sections, range 2–8), placed onto polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) membrane slides (Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany), and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). One representative section (5 µm) per specimen block was mounted onto charged glass slides and H&E stained. Representative slides (the H&E section on glass and one LMD slide per specimen block) were scanned using the Aperio ScanScope XT slide scanner (Leica Microsystems). Micrographs of the representative sections on glass were reviewed by board-certified pathologist in Aperio eSlide Manager and Aperio ImageScope (Leica Microsystems) to annotate and confirm tumor areas of tumor epithelium for LMD enrichment.

Laser microdissection

LMD enrichment of tumor epithelium (5–10 µm2) was performed on the LMD7 (Leica Microsystems). The LMD enriched tumor samples for RPPA analysis were collected into cylindrical pressure cycling technology (PCT; Pressure Biosciences, Inc., South Easton, MA, USA) microtubes. A lysis/extraction buffer containing final concentrations of 10% tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP, 50 mM; ThermoFisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), 22.5% tris hydrochloride (Tris–HCl, 225 mM; ThermoFisher Scientific, Inc.), 4% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS, v/v; ThermoFisher Scientific, Inc.), 10% glycerol (v/v; ThermoFisher Scientific, Inc.), and 37.5% MilliQ type I water was added at a ratio of 2.5 µl buffer per mm2 LMD tissue. The microtubes were capped with PCT microcaps and placed into 0.5 ml PCR tubes, briefly centrifuged, and stored at − 80℃ until sample lysis. Representative images before and after LMD were captured using the Aperio AT2 slide scanner (Leica Microsystems).

CLIA-based reverse phase protein microarray analysis

The LMD enriched tumor samples were heated at 95 ℃ for 20 min, briefly centrifuged, and heated at 80 ℃ for 2 h. After heating, the samples were stored at 4 ℃ for one minute and then centrifuged for 18,000 rcf for 15 min. The lysate supernatants containing the denatured proteins were transferred to fresh low protein binding o-ring screw-top tubes (Agilent Technologies, Savage, MD, USA) and stored at − 80 ℃ until shipment on dry ice to Theralink Technologies, Inc. (Golden, CO, USA) for RPPA analysis.

RPPA analysis was performed as previously described [32] using a 32-marker, CLIA certified and CAP accredited commercial calibrated assay panel for examination of the total and phosphoprotein abundances of several targets with known relevance in solid tumors [29, 33]. The CLIA and CAP accredited RPPA assay is a calibrated immunoassay format that has been previously described [34,35,36], and uses a series of calibrators and controls along with a reference population data set of levels of expression of each of the 32 analytes including total and phosphorylated HER2, phosphorylated HER3, etc. derived from LMD enriched tumor epithelium over 400 FFPE breast cancer tumor biopsy samples (100 of each HER2/HR subtype). The HER2 expression status of the 400 tumors was derived from central lab based HER2 and HR IHC and/or FISH analysis and each experimental sample is interpolated/extrapolated to the reference population using the calibrator sets which are printed on every slide. Under CAP guidelines and in keeping with antibody validation criteria outlined by the RPPA society and now widely used by the RPPA community [37], the RPPA assay workflow includes extensive validation of all antibodies by western blotting, peptide competition and using positive and negative lysates derived from ligand stimulated cell lines. Of note, the CLIA IHC HER2 assay (NeoGenomics, Laboratories, Inc., Fort Myers, FL, USA) uses the Ventana 4B5 clone, which is validated for use as the breast and gastric companion diagnostic. The CLIA RPPA HER2 assay (Theralink Technologies, Inc.) uses the Invitrogen SP3 clone (rabbit recombinant antibody, (catalog MA5-14509, dilution 1:400). However, while the RPPA and IHC assays use different clones, the reference population used by the RPPA CLIA laboratory to qualify the RPPA assay results were derived from 400 breast tumors whose HER2 IHC was previously determined using the 4B5 clone and the results were > 95% correlated [7].

Briefly, sample lysates for RPPA analysis were printed onto nitrocellulose backed slides in technical triplicates alongside all requisite controls and calibrators. Prior to staining, nitrocellulose slides were pre-treated with ReBlot (MilliporeSigma, Rockville, MD, USA) and a blocking reagent (I-Block; Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA). Slides were incubated with primary antibodies for 30 min at room temperature, followed by incubation with a secondary antibody. Each staining run included a single negative control slide (only antibody diluent; no primary antibody). Protein detection was amplified via horseradish peroxidase mediated biotinyl tyramide deposition and visualized using a fluorescent probe (LI-COR Biosciences, Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). Images of the stained RPPA slides were captured on an InnoScan 710-AL (Innopsys, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Individual spots were detected using the InnoScan software program, Mapix, and spots with non-standard morphology and/or staining were flagged and removed from analysis. The average median intensity value was calculated for each sample on the array for each analyte as well as the negative control slide. Background subtracted intensity values for each sample were fit to an analyte-specific calibrator and total protein normalized. Resulting values were compared to a population reference to determine patient sample percentile and quartile score. The RPPA data is provided in the report as both a continuous variable percentile-based output (0–100) as well as a quartile-based output (0–3) based on the relationship of the patient-specific value compared to the population reference. The 0–3 scoring output is meant to provide interpretive context to physicians who are most used to looking at CLIA IHC-based scoring outputs for protein biomarkers used in patient treatment decision making (e.g. PD-L1, HER2, etc.).

Next generation sequencing

Clinical NGS (specifically, DNA-seq) analysis was performed using the Tempus xT 648-gene panel [38] (Tempus Labs, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), prioritizing the same FFPE tissue specimen as was used for the LMD-RPPA analysis whenever possible. Matched specimens (ie. the same specimen block) were available for 46 patients for analysis by both RPPA and DNA-seq. Different specimen blocks were used for RPPA versus DNA-seq for 20 patients. Different specimen blocks were used for RPPA versus DNA-seq for 20 patients. The samples for DNA-seq were prepared from tissue sections with a median of 50% tumor cellularity after macrodissection/microdissection (range = 20–90% tumor cellularity).

Bioinformatic and statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the patients' demographics. Fisher's Exact tests were used to compare the RPPA abundances of HER2Total, pHER2Y1248, and pHER3Y1289 between groups. SAS software (v9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used for statistical analysis. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Boxplots of RPPA normalized intensity scores for HER2Total, pHER2Y1248, and pHER3Y1289 were generated using BoxPlotR [39].

Results

From October 13, 2021 until December 8, 2022, a total of 111 patients were consented to an IRB-approved study examining the feasibility and utility of including quantitative proteomic analysis into a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) setting at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute (ISCI) (Fig. 1A). The cohort analyzed in the present subsidiary analysis was comprised of primary and/or metastatic tissue specimens from a cohort of 14 patients with PDAC, 14 patients with breast cancer, and 40 patients with other solid tumor malignancies were selected (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of study design. A Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) primary and/or metastatic tumor surgical biopsy specimens were prospectively obtained from patients with PDAC, breast cancer, and other solid tumor malignancies as part of an IRB-approved Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) study at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute (ISCI). B Workflow diagram depicting tissue specimen analysis. Tumor epithelium (5–10 µm2) from tissue specimens was harvested via LMD at a ratio of 1 mm2 LMD area per 2.5 µl buffer into a lysis buffer containing 50 mM Bond-Breaker TCEP Solution, 225 mM Tris–HCl, 4% v/v sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 10% v/v glycerol, in MilliQ Type I water. RPPA analysis of the LMD enriched tissue lysates was performed by Theralink Technologies, Inc., as previously described [32, 33]. C Representative micrographs of tissue thin sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) mounted onto a glass slide histopathological assessment (left, 5 µm), and onto a slide containing a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) membrane after LMD harvest of tumor epithelium (right, 8 µm). Clinical NGS was performed by a commercial sequencing laboratory

Full size image

Tumor epithelium was harvested via LMD for RPPA quantification of total HER2 (HER2Total), phosphorylated (p)HER2Y1248, and pHER3Y1289 as part of a 32-protein/phosphoprotein biomarker, research use only (RUO) panel in a commercial CLIA/CAP-accredited laboratory (Theralink Technologies, Inc.) examining the abundances of targets with known relevance in solid tumors, as previously described (Fig. 1B, C) [7, 16,17,18, 28, 29, 32, 33]. Protein and phosphoprotein-level expression was determined by comparing the RPPA-derived quantitative values from each patient LMD tumor sample in our cohort against an existing and extensively validated RPPA reference dataset derived from LMD enriched tumor epithelium from 400 breast cancer specimens with centrally-determined HER2-positive/amplified (IHC 3+ /2+ , FISH-positive) and HER2-negative/unamplified (IHC 0/1+ /2+ , FISH-negative) status. In keeping with the RPPA as a clinical immunoassay format, the known HER2Total, pHER2Y1248, and pHER3Y1289 expression in the validated reference population was used to calculate the proteomic/phosphoproteomic expression of these targets from the LMD enriched samples from our cohort of patients with pancreatic, breast, or other solid tumors using the external calibrators printed on every slide. The RPPA HER2Total, pHER2Y1248, and pHER3Y1289 continuous variable percentile values (0–100), the RPPA 0–3 intensity score and the HER2 IHC value (when obtained), are provided for each of the tumor samples from the 68 patients, including the HER2-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer tumors so a detailed cohort level and case-by-case comparison between the RPPA percentile and categorical HER2Total values, the pHER2Y1248 and pHER3Y1289 values, and the IHC determined HER2 values can be seen (Additional file 1: Table S2). Clinical next generation sequencing (NGS; DNA-seq and RNA-seq) of bulk tissue specimens was performed by a commercial sequencing laboratory, prioritizing the same specimen block that was used for LMD-RPPA when possible.

PDAC tumors had significantly higher relative levels of HER2Total expression than other solid tumors (p = 0.0112), and trended higher than the predominantly HER2-negative breast cancers in our cohort (p = 0.0962) (Fig. 2, Additional file 1: Table S3). Moreover, since a heterogeneous HER2-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer population was used as a reference, the PDAC HER2Total levels in this cohort are comparable to those from breast cancer patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low tumors. The mean HER2Total abundances in PDAC, breast, and all other solid tumor malignancies were 1.6, 1.3, and 0.9, respectively (Fig. 2). Activated pHER2Y1248 and pHER3Y1289 abundances did not differ between patients with PDAC vs all other solid tumors or between patients with PDAC vs breast cancer (p > 0.05). RNA-seq revealed ERBB2 (HER2) overexpression in four PDAC patients, one breast cancer patient, and two patients with older solid tumors. ERBB2 CN gain by DNA-seq was not observed in the patients with PDAC or breast cancer, consistent with previous studies [30]. ERBB2 CN gain was measured in three other solid tumor patients (gastric and esophageal). Activating ERBB2 mutations were measured in specimens from two breast cancer patients (S310F, G776V) and one other solid tumor patient (R929W).

Fig. 2
figure 2

RPPA quantification of HER2Total, pHER2Y1248, pHER3Y1289 and correlation with CLIA-approved clinical IHC scoring. Fisher's Exact tests were performed using SAS software (v9.4) to compare the RPPA abundances of HER2Total, pHER2Y1248, and pHER3Y1289 between groups. An asterisk (*) indicates p < 0.05. NS  not significant

Full size image

HER2 IHC analysis was independently performed for 23 patients using the same specimens as were used for the LMD-RPPA analysis (Additional file 1: Table S3). The HER2Total abundances quantified by IHC and RPPA were not correlated, consistent with previous findings [7]. Further, RPPA-based quantification of HER2Total and pHER2Y1248 were not correlated in PDAC or breast cancer tumors.

Discussion

IHC evaluation of HER2 expression is not a routine part of clinical care for PDAC. Based on conventional criteria of 3 + IHC staining or 2 + IHC with FISH-positivity, less than 2% of PDAC are classified as HER2-positive [40]. Routine NGS profiling for PDAC patients is performed to evaluate ERBB2 amplification, which is found in only 2% of cases [41]. Since systemic therapies for PDAC have poor results and newer HER2-targeting agents, including ADCs, are benefitting patients HER2-low tumors, there is a critical unmet need to identify PDAC patients who may benefit from anti-HER2 therapy [10]. A few prior studies have demonstrated efficacy of HER2-directed therapy in HER2-overexpressed PDAC cell lines [42] and single-patient reports [43].

We demonstrate a high rate of HER2Total expression in PDAC tumors, with more than half of the tumors showing modest to moderate levels of RPPA-determined HER2Total. Moreover, RPPA-determined HER2Total expression in our PDAC cohort was higher than in other solid tumors, and most significantly, in over half of the population studied. Importantly, the HER2Total protein levels measured quantitatively by RPPA in PDAC are comparable with HER2Total abundances in HER2 IHC 3 + amplified breast cancer, as well as HER2-low breast tumors. RPPA-determined tumor HER2 and pHER2 correlations with HER2-therapy based clinical treatment response have not yet been described in PDAC, so we sought to utilize what we postulated was the most conservative approach to defining the context of HER2 and pHER2 expression and activation in PDAC, which was contextualizing the RPPA based HER2 and pHER2 levels to a breast cancer reference comprised of known CLIA IHC/FISH determined HER2 unamplified (including HER2-low tumors) and HER2 amplified tumors. Since the CLIA RPPA is a calibrated assay and since both the breast tumor reference and PDAC patient input were both derived from LMD enriched tumor epithelium that were arrayed at the same protein concentrations, a direct comparison can be made, allowing us to determine and compare the relative levels of HER2 protein expression and HER2 activation (phosphorylation) in PDAC compared to HER2 unamplified breast cancers. This is critical since these breast cancer patients with HER2-low disease are now being routinely treated under FDA approved therapeutic regimens with anti-HER2 agents, which allows us to contextualize the major findings of our paper that over 50% of PDAC patients have tumors that express the same levels of HER2 protein and HER2 protein activation as the tumors from breast cancer patients who are now routinely prescribed HER2 therapies on-label because of those HER2 levels.

These data suggest that while the inhibition of HER2 signaling by a TKI such as lapatinib or tucatinib will be unlikely to provide clinical benefit as the HER2 pathway does not appear to be highly activated in PDAC patients, the use of HER2-targeting ADCs such as T-DXd may promote directed delivery of drugs to the specific HER2-expressing tumor cells. Concordantly, interim analysis from DESTINY-PanTumor02 phase II trial reported meaningful responses to T-DXd in patients with PDAC [44]. Our results further suggest that future investigations of HER2-targeting ADCs, including T-DXd, in HER2-low PDAC patients will have a large pool of potential patients eligible for enrollment. The HER3 abundance and activation state demonstrated here may also provide another avenue for exploration, though HER3 has not been established as a predictive biomarker [45].

A streamlined LMD-RPPA analytical workflow uniquely allows for direct quantification of HER2Total abundance and activation state. This same workflow has been found to identify HER2 expressing breast cancers in the HER2-low setting missed by IHC [18] and could be a new molecular approach to identify PDAC patients whose tumor HER2 levels are druggable by new ADC therapeutics. The HER2-positive arm for biliary tract malignancies in TAPUR demonstrated responses in patients with activating HER2 mutations, in addition to amplified or overexpressed patients [46]. Phosphoprotein activation analysis may be useful for predicting response in this subset, in agreement with prior studies demonstrating that HER2 phosphorylation could predict response to neratinib in HER2-mutated breast and NSCLC patients [47]. Given the redundancies and complexity of signaling pathways, in a pan-tumor setting it is likely that some potential responders will not have overexpression, amplification, or activating mutations, thus both quantitative HER2Total and pHER2 functional protein signaling pathway mapping via RPPA remains a compelling tool for predicting responsiveness to HER2-targeted ADC and/or TKI therapeutics. Additionally, LMD enrichment of specimens allows for tumor-centric proteomic and phosphoproteomic profiling for a more accurate assessment of HER2 abundance, which may explain the discrepancy between the HER2Total by RPPA and the HER2 IHC characterization determined through conventional laboratory diagnostics.

The primary limitation of our study is the number of patients. Additionally, the clinical relevance of HER2 phosphorylation and quantitative HER2Total measurements in PDAC remains unknown, as no prospective studies to date have utilized RPPA analysis in PDAC patients to examine HER2Total or pHER2/3 as predictive biomarkers. Lastly, LMD is not widely available in the clinical setting. Nonetheless, we were encouraged by the high percentage of PDAC tumors in which HER2 was expressed and/or activated. Further studies quantifying proteomic HER2 expression and/or activation in larger patient cohorts are ongoing. Given the dearth of options for relapsed/refractory PDAC, this is a fertile ground for exploration.

In conclusion, we demonstrate that in over half of the PDAC patient tumors evaluated in our study, HER2Total protein expression levels are comparable to that of breast cancer patients, for which HER2 expression is routinely evaluated and now therapeutically targeted with FDA-approved HER2-directed agents. While our evaluation of phosphoprotein expression demonstrated overall low activation rates (pHER2Y1248 and pHER3Y1289), some patients with activated HER2 phenotypes were also found who could be sensitive to HER2-directed TKI therapy as well. More studies are needed to evaluate the clinical benefit of targeting HER2 in this population.

Data availability

The datasets used during the current study may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request providing anonymization can be maintained.

Abbreviations

PDAC:

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

RPPA:

Reverse phase protein array

LMD:

Laser microdissection

IHC:

Immunohistochemistry

FISH:

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

FU:

Fluorouracil

CN:

Copy number

T-DXd:

Trastuzumab deruxtecan

mPFS:

Modified progression-free survival

mOS:

Overall survival

HER2-:

Human epidermal growth factor 2

TKI:

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors

ADCs:

Antibody drug conjugates

TME:

Tumor microenvironment

ER:

Estrogen receptor

MTB:

Molecular Tumor Board

ISCI:

Inova Schar Cancer Institute

p:

Phosphorylated

References

  1. Siegel RL, et al. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):17–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. National Cancer Institute, D.o.C.C.a.P.S., Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER*Stat Database: Incidence-SEER Research Data with Delay-Adjustment, 8 Registries, Malignant Only (1975–2019), based on the November 2021 submission. 2022.

  3. Network, N.C.C. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (Version 2.2022). 2022. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2023.

  4. Wang-Gillam A, et al. NAPOLI-1 phase 3 study of liposomal irinotecan in metastatic pancreatic cancer: final overall survival analysis and characteristics of long-term survivors. Eur J Cancer. 2019;108:78–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moutafi M, et al. Quantitative measurement of HER2 expression to subclassify ERBB2 unamplified breast cancer. Lab Invest. 2022;102(10):1101–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Robbins CJ, et al. Multi-institutional assessment of pathologist scoring HER2 immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 2023;36(1): 100032.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Petricoin EF, et al. Abstract HER2-17: HER2-17 novel quantitative HER2 assay for determining dynamic HER2 expression in the HER2 IHC 0 “Ultra-Low” setting: implications for precision therapy in HER2- breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2023;83(5_Supplement):HER2-17. https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS22-HER2-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tarantino P, et al. HER2-low breast cancer: pathological and clinical landscape. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(17):1951–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schettini F, et al. Clinical, pathological, and PAM50 gene expression features of HER2-low breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021;7(1):1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Modi S, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated HER2-low advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(1):9–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mosele F, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in metastatic breast cancer with variable HER2 expression: the phase 2 DAISY trial. Nat Med. 2023;29(8):2110–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Slamon DJ, et al. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235(4785):177–82.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thor AD, et al. Activation (tyrosine phosphorylation) of ErbB-2 (HER-2/neu): a study of incidence and correlation with outcome in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(18):3230–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Giuliani R, et al. Phosphorylated HER-2 tyrosine kinase and Her-2/neu gene amplification as predictive factors of response to trastuzumab in patients with HER-2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(4):725–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnston S, et al. Phase II study of predictive biomarker profiles for response targeting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) in advanced inflammatory breast cancer with lapatinib monotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(7):1066–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wulfkuhle JD, et al. Molecular analysis of HER2 signaling in human breast cancer by functional protein pathway activation mapping. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(23):6426–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wulfkuhle JD, et al. Evaluation of the HER/PI3K/AKT family signaling network as a predictive biomarker of pathologic complete response for patients with breast cancer treated with neratinib in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2:1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clark AS, et al. Neoadjuvant T-DM1/pertuzumab and paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab for HER2(+) breast cancer in the adaptively randomized I-SPY2 trial. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):6428.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ho WJ, Jaffee EM, Zheng L. The tumour microenvironment in pancreatic cancer—clinical challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(9):527–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher NC, et al. Biological misinterpretation of transcriptional signatures in tumor samples can unknowingly undermine mechanistic understanding and faithful alignment with preclinical data. Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28(18):4056–69.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Neesse A, et al. Stromal biology and therapy in pancreatic cancer: ready for clinical translation? Gut. 2019;68(1):159–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hunt AL, et al. Extensive three-dimensional intratumor proteomic heterogeneity revealed by multiregion sampling in high-grade serous ovarian tumor specimens. iScience. 2021;24(7): 102757.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hunt AL, et al. Mapping three-dimensional intratumor proteomic heterogeneity in uterine serous carcinoma by multiregion microsampling. Clin Proteomics. 2024;21(1):4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Eckert MA, et al. Proteomics reveals NNMT as a master metabolic regulator of cancer-associated fibroblasts. Nature. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1173-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang Q, Wang C, Cliby WA. Cancer-associated stroma significantly contributes to the mesenchymal subtype signature of serous ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(2):368–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Maller O, et al. Tumour-associated macrophages drive stromal cell-dependent collagen crosslinking and stiffening to promote breast cancer aggression. Nat Mater. 2021;20(4):548–59.

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mueller C, et al. Glioblastoma cell enrichment is critical for analysis of phosphorylated drug targets and proteomic-genomic correlations. Cancer Res. 2014;74(3):818–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Baldelli E, et al. Impact of upfront cellular enrichment by laser capture microdissection on protein and phosphoprotein drug target signaling activation measurements in human lung cancer: implications for personalized medicine. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2015;9(9–10):928–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hunt AL, et al. Integration of multi-omic data in a molecular tumor board reveals EGFR-associated ALK-inhibitor resistance in a patient with inflammatory myofibroblastic cancer. Oncologist. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyad129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Yamanaka Y, et al. Overexpression of HER2/neu oncogene in human pancreatic carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 1993;24(10):1127–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Harder J, et al. Multicentre phase II trial of trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2 overexpressing metastatic pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(6):1033–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Baldelli E, et al. Reverse phase protein microarrays. In: Espina V, editor., et al., Molecular profiling: methods and protocols. New York, NY: Springer, New York; 2017. p. 149–69.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Wulfkuhle JD, et al. Multiplexed cell signaling analysis of human breast cancer applications for personalized therapy. J Proteome Res. 2008;7(4):1508–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pierobon M, et al. Multi-omic molecular profiling guide’s efficacious treatment selection in refractory metastatic breast cancer: a prospective phase II clinical trial. Mol Oncol. 2022;16(1):104–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jameson GS, et al. A pilot study utilizing multi-omic molecular profiling to find potential targets and select individualized treatments for patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147(3):579–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pierobon M, et al. Pilot phase I/II personalized therapy trial for metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluating the feasibility of protein pathway activation mapping for stratifying patients to therapy with imatinib and panitumumab. J Proteome Res. 2014;13(6):2846–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Akbani R, et al. Realizing the promise of reverse phase protein arrays for clinical, translational, and basic research: a workshop report: the RPPA (Reverse Phase Protein Array) society. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2014;13(7):1625–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Beaubier N, et al. Clinical validation of the tempus xT next-generation targeted oncology sequencing assay. Oncotarget. 2019;10(24):2384–96. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.26797.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Spitzer M, et al. BoxPlotR: a web tool for generation of box plots. Nat Methods. 2014;11(2):121–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hofmann M, et al. Assessment of a HER2 scoring system for gastric cancer: results from a validation study. Histopathology. 2008;52(7):797–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chou A, et al. Clinical and molecular characterization of HER2 amplified-pancreatic cancer. Genome Med. 2013;5(8):78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Shibata W, et al. Overexpression of HER2 in the pancreas promotes development of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms in mice. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):6150.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. King DA, et al. Complete remission of widely metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–amplified pancreatic adenocarcinoma after precision immune and targeted therapy with description of sequencing and organoid correlates. JCO Precis Oncol. 2023;7: e2100489.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in patients (pts) with HER2-expressing solid tumors: DESTINY-PanTumor02 (DP-02) interim results. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(17_suppl):LBA3000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Uliano J, et al. Targeting HER3 for cancer treatment: a new horizon for an old target. ESMO Open. 2023;8(1): 100790.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Cannon TL, et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab (P+T) in patients (pts) with biliary tract cancer (BTC) with ERBB2/3 amplification (amp), overexpression (oe), or mutation (mut): results from the targeted agent and profiling utilization registry (TAPUR) study. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(4_suppl):546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pierobon M, Gandhi L, Cristofanilli M, Tripathy D, Petricoin EF III. Protein pathway activation mapping for multi-omic-based precision medicine. Am J Hematol/Oncol. 2016;12(3):20–4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Paulette Mhawech-Fauceglia for histopathology analysis support.

Funding

This research was supported by Inova Schar Cancer Institute philanthropy funds. Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the views, opinions or policies of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc., the Department of Defense or the Departments of the Army, Navy, or Air Force. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jamie Randall and Allison L. Hunt contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Inova Health System, 8081 Innovation Park Dr, Fairfax, VA, 22031, USA

    Jamie Randall, Aratara Nutcharoen, Laura Johnston, Safae Chouraichi, Arthur Winer, Raymond Wadlow, Jasmine Huynh, John F. Deeken & Timothy L. Cannon

  2. Women’s Health Integrated Research Center, Women’s Service Line, Inova Health System, 3289 Woodburn Rd, Annandale, VA, 22042, USA

    Allison L. Hunt & Thomas P. Conrads

  3. Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20889, USA

    Allison L. Hunt, Nicholas W. Bateman & Thomas P. Conrads

  4. Department of Pathology, Inova Fairfax Hospital, 3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, VA, 22042, USA

    Aratara Nutcharoen

  5. Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA

    Hongkun Wang

  6. Theralink Technologies, Inc., 15000 W 6th Ave, Golden, CO, 80401, USA

    Justin Davis & Brian Corgiat

  7. The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc., 6720A Rockledge Drive, Suite 100, Bethesda, MD, 20817, USA

    Nicholas W. Bateman

  8. Center for Applied Proteomics and Molecular Medicine, George Mason University, Manassas, VA, 20110, USA

    Emanuel F. Petricoin

Authors
  1. Jamie Randall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allison L. Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aratara Nutcharoen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Safae Chouraichi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hongkun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arthur Winer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Raymond Wadlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jasmine Huynh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Justin Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Brian Corgiat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nicholas W. Bateman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. John F. Deeken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Emanuel F. Petricoin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Thomas P. Conrads
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Timothy L. Cannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Contributed to conception: T.L.C, T.P.C. Contributed to experimental design: T.L.C., T.P.C., A.L.H., J.R. Contributed to identification of patients and/or acquisition of the tissue specimens: J.R., A.N., L.J., A.W., R.W., T.L.C. Contributed to acquisition, analysis, and/or interpretation of data: A.L.H., A.N., H.W., J.H., J.D., B.C., J.F.D., E.F.P., T.P.C., T.L.C. Drafted and/or revised the article: J.R., A.L.H., S.C., J.H., N.W.B., E.F.P., T.P.C., T.L.C. Acquired funding for the research: T.L.C. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy L. Cannon.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

WIRB-Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board (WCG IRB) approved this study. All participants provided written informed consent.

Competing interests

T.P.C is a ThermoFisher Scientific, Inc SAB member and receives research funding from AbbVie. E.F.P is a consultant for Theralink Technologies, Inc., receives research funding from Genentech, Pfizer, AbbVie, Mirati, Springworks Pharmaceuticals, Diciphera Pharmaceuticals, and is a co-inventor of the RPPA technology described herein and receives royalties on the related license agreements with Theralink Technologies, Inc.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. Table S2. The HER2Total, pHER2Y1248, and pHER3Y1289 abundances quantified by RPPA are reported as categorical values of 0, 1, 2, and 3, as well as normalized percentile values ranging from 0-100% relative to the reference population standards. The IHC-based characterizations of HER2Total are reported as quartile-based categorical values of 0, 1, 2, and 3, per standard clinical scoring, for which an IHC score of 3+ or 2+/FISH-positive is clinically defined as HER2-positive. Clinical IHC-based HER2Total testing was not performed for all tumors; those tumors without IHC data are reported as “Not evaluated”. Table S3. Spearman correlations were calculated between the HER2Total and pHER2Y1248 abundances quantified by RPPA each for PDAC and breast cancer tumors, and between the HER2Total abundances quantified by RPPA and standard clinical IHC staining each for PDAC and breast cancer tumors. ND = not done (IHC staining not performed).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Randall, J., Hunt, A.L., Nutcharoen, A. et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis of HER2 protein expression in PDAC tumors. Clin Proteom 21, 24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12014-024-09476-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12014-024-09476-7

Keywords

Clinical Proteomics

ISSN: 1559-0275