Table 2 ERBB2 and ERBB3 mutations in different stages of lobular neoplastic progression
From: Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: the increasing importance of this special subtype
Study | ERBB2 alteration frequency | ERBB3 alteration frequency | Notes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total % | Mut | Amp | Total % | Mut | Amp | |||
In situ | Harrison et al. [27] | 94.7% | 13/19 | 6/19 | 21% | 4/19 | 0/19 | 17 PLCIS; 2 FLCIS |
Shamir et al. [33] | 50% | 6/16 | 2/16 | 18.7% | 3/16 | 0/16 | 10 PLCIS; 6 FLCIS; ERBB2 and/or ERBB3 alterations in 60% PLCIS and 50% FLCIS | |
Primary ILC | Zhu et al. [37] | 17.6% | 3/17 | – | 23.5% | 4/17 | – | PILC |
Rosa-Rosa et al. [36] | 26% | 7/27 | 1/27 | – | – | – | PILC; association with nuclear grade 3 | |
Christgen et al. [41] | 5% | 5/106 | – | – | – | – | Grade 3 but no association with solid or pleomorphic | |
Cao et al. [42] | 19% | – | 13/70 | – | – | – | Amplification; no mutation assessment | |
Deniziaut et al. [43] | 15% | 6/55 | – | 0% | 0/55 | – | Grade 3; positive association with solid presentation | |
Ping et al. [44] | 6% | 6/100 | – | – | – | – | CDH1 altered with ERBB2 mutation correlates with poor prognosis | |
Lien et al. [31] | 52.2% | 5/24 | 8/24 | – | – | – | PILC; 2% in classic ILC | |
mILC | Ma et al. [45] | 7.8% | 4/51 | – | – | – | – | Metastatic ILC; confirmed neratinib efficacy in ERBB2 mutants in phase II trial; detection in ctDNA |
Ross et al. [46] | 22.7% | 4/22 | 1/22 |  |  |  | Relapsed ILC; ERBB2 mutation enriched in CDH1 mutant tumours; I gene fusion not tabulated (ERBB2–GRB7) | |