Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Oct 16;20(10):e0334610. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334610

Exploring the role of routine brain imaging in detecting asymptomatic brain metastases in first diagnosed HER2-positive breast cancer

Carmen Leser 1,*, Fiona Kabashi 1, Georg Dorffner 2, Olgica Zaric 3,4, Christine Deutschmann 1, Daphne Gschwantler-Kaulich 1
Editor: Elingarami Sauli5
PMCID: PMC12530607  PMID: 41100465

Abstract

Background

HER2-positive breast cancer is leading to aggressive tumor growth and a higher risk of metastasis, particularly to the central nervous system (CNS). Routine brain imaging for asymptomatic HER2-positive patients is debated, with no current consensus; Given the severe clinical implications of brain metastases, further research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness and clinical utility of routine imaging for high-risk patients to improve outcomes and inform targeted screening protocols.

Methods

This retrospective, monocentric study at the General Hospital of Vienna (AKH Wien) examined female HER2-positive breast cancer patients at first diagnosis to assess brain metastasis from January 2019 to February 2024. The study included patients with asymptomatic confirmed HER2 positive breast cancer. Data were collected through comprehensive medical records and brain imaging with MRI.

Results

Among 110 female patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 4 (3.6%) were diagnosed with brain metastases. Ki67 showed a marginal association with brain metastasis (p = 0.054), and tumor grade was a significant predictor, with intermediate differentiated tumors (G2 vs. G3) associated with a higher risk of brain metastases (p = 0.041) and brain metases are correlating with the axillary lymphnode status and the tumor sizeAlso, the absence of positive Östrogen and Progesteron receptors is a predictor in upcoming brain metastases (p < 0.001). Other factors like age were not significantly associated.

Conclusion

This study found limited benefit in routine MRI for detecting asymptomatic brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer, given the low prevalence (3.6%). A targeted imaging approach for high-risk patients, like those with the absence of Hormon receptors and higher stage tumors, may be effective.

Introduction

HER2 (Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2) is a gene that plays a critical role in the regulation of cell growth. In approximately 15–20% of breast cancer cases, the HER2 gene is amplified, leading to the overexpression of the HER2 protein on the surface of the tumor cells. This overexpression again is responsible for an aggressive tumor growth, resulting in poorer prognosis and an increase of the risk for metastasis when compared to other breast cancer subtypes, such as hormon receptor-positive (HR+) or HER2-negative [1]. Studies suggest that between 30–50% of patients with advanced HER2-positive breast-cancer will develop metastases to the central nervous system (CNS) at some point during the disease course [24]. One large study that followed 2686 breast cancer patients found that HER2-positive patients had a 10.1% rate of brain metastases, as opposed to 5.1% for HER2-negative patients [1]. The tendency of HER2-positive cancer to metastasize to the brain is largely due to the molecular characteristics of HER2 amplification, which enhances tumor cell invasiveness and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) [5]. The development of brain metastasis has important clinical implications. Brain metastases not only significantly affect survival but also impact the patient’s quality of life due to neurological symptoms, including headaches, seizures, cognitive impairment, and motor dysfunction. For many patients, brain metastasis is a major factor that limits overall survival, with many succumbing to brain progression rather than other systemic complications of the disease [6]. Thus, given the significant impact of brain metastasis, it should be evaluated whether routine brain imaging should be implemented for asymptomatic HER2-positive patients. Currently, there is no consensus on this. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET-CT) are valuable tools that can detect brain metastasis early, particularly in asymptomatic cases. MRI has become the gold standard for detecting brain metastases due to its superior sensitivity in detecting small and asymptomatic lesions, especially for HER2-postive patients [7]. PET-CT imaging also plays a role, particularly in systemic disease assessment, but its use for brain imaging is less well-established due to the lower sensitivity of PET for brain lesions. Nonetheless, newer radiotracers and techniques are being developed to improve the utility of PET-CT in identifying brain metastases in HER2-positive patients [8]. Despite the risk of asymptomatic brain metastases in HER2-positive patients, routine screening is typically reserved for symptomatic patients. Meanwhile, the introduction of novel HER2-targeted therapies has changed the prognosis for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, including those with brain metastases. Agents such as tucatinib and trastuzumab-deruxtecan have shown promising results for patients with brain metastasis by demonstrating activity across the blood-brain barrier. Tucatinib, in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine, has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of death and intracranial progression in this context [9]. Thus, an early detection through routine imaging could identify brain metastases when they are smaller and more treatable, potentially improving survival and reducing neurological symptoms. This is why a recent review emphasized that the decision to perform brain imaging should consider the individual patient’s risk factors, including HER2 status, tumor size, and previous metastatic spread [10]. Routine imaging, especially with advanced tools like MRI, might offer a survival benefit in high-risk patients, but evidence on cost-effectiveness and the number-needed-to-treat remains limited.

Materials and methods

This retrospective, monocentric study was conducted at the Department of Gynecology, General Hospital of Vienna (AKH Wien), from January 2019 to February 2024. It employed a cross-sectional design, focusing on female HER2-positive breast cancer patients, particularly regarding the diagnosis and treatment of brain metastasis.

Study population

Inclusion criteria were female patients aged 18 years or older, presenting for the first time at AKH Wien, with sufficient clinical documentation and HER2+++ or HER2++ confirmed by positive FISH testing. Exclusion criteria included male patients because we only treat women, patients under 18, HER2-negative breast cancer, pre-existing brain abnormalities, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) only.

Data collection

Patients underwent medical history assessments, physical examinations, brain imaging with MRI at diagnosis, and histopathological evaluations. Asymptomatic patients were examined on a 3T MRI scanner (MAGNETON Vida, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) using 64-channer head-neck coil (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) in supine position. Imaging protocol included T2w imaging with Sampling Perfection with Application optimized Contrast (t2_space) sequence, T2w with turbo spin echo (t2_tse) sequence, diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with Readout Segmentation of Long Variable Echo-trains (RESOLVE), susceptibility weighted imaging (PWI), and contrast enhanced T1w imaging with high-resolution 3D isotropic Magnetization-Prepared Rapid Gradient-Echo (MPRAGE) sequence. Sequence parameters are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. MRI sequences and parameters used for examinations of patients in this study.

MRI sequence Acquisition type Echo/Repetition/Inversion Time (TE/TR/IT) [ms] In-plane resolution [mm2] Slice thickness [mm] Flip angle (FA) [°] Bandwidth (BW) [Hz/px]
T2_space 3D 5000/398/1800 0.94 × 0.94 0.94 120 781
T2_tse 2D 4870/89 0.57 × 0.57 3.0 150 250
RESOLVE 2D 4190/86 0.43 × 0.43 4.0 180 574
T2_swi 3D 28/20 0.90 × 0.90 1.75 15 120
T1_MPRAGE 3D 2000/3.3/1010 1.0 × 1.0 1.0 9 250

*2D-two dimensional; 3D-three dimensional.

Data were collected from the RDA and AKIM systems from 10th September 2024–15th October 2024, pseudonymized, and entered into a Microsoft® Excel® file before being analyzed with IBM SPSS® Statistics software. Because of the retrospective study, there was no need for participant content. Authors had access to identification of participants during data collection, but not after.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Vienna (EK-Nr. 1334/2024). Due to the retrospective design, no direct patient benefits or risks were anticipated, and data confidentiality was ensured via pseudonymization and secure data handling in compliance with good scientific practice.

In the present study, there are no conflicts of interest to disclose. All procedures performed involving human participants adhered to the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

This declaration aims to assure the research community and the public of our commitment to ethical conduct and integrity in our research. We understand the importance of these ethical considerations and believe that our adherence to these principles will contribute to the credibility and reliability of our findings.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS® Statistics, version 22. Descriptive statistics, including mean (M), standard deviation (SD), median (Md), and interquartile range (IQR), were used for continuous variables, with categorical variables summarized by frequencies (n) and percentages (%). For group comparisons, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used, while chi-square (χ²) tests or Fisher’s exact test were applied for categorical variables. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

A total of 110 female patients meeting the inclusion criteria, were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients was 53.7 years (SD = 13.0 years), and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.8 kg/m² (SD = 6.5 kg/m²).

The Ki67 proliferation index showed a mean of 46.01% (SD = 20.7%). A total of 91 patients (82.7%) had a Ki67 index above the cutoff value of 25%, indicating a high level of cellular proliferation. No significant correlation was found between Ki67 levels and patient age (p = 0.637), indicating that age did not influence the proliferation index. The most common tumor type in the study population was invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), present in 91.8% of cases (n = 101),. A small percentage of patients had invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (4.5%) or other types of cancer, such as mucinous or micropapillary carcinoma (5.5%) Additionally, one patient exhibiting a rare combination of IDC, and another tumor type. Tumor size, an essential part of the staging process, was documented for 110 patients. The majority of tumors were classified in TNM as clinial tumor size(cT)1 (n = 49, 44.5%), while 32 (29.1%) were classified cT 2, 9(8.2%) were classified cT3, and 19 (17.3%) were classified as cT4. While the tumor size in the patients with brain metastases differ (1 out of 49 patients cT1, 1 out of 9 patients cT3, 2 out of 19 patients cT4), all patients had positive axillary lymphnodes. This is a significant finding (p < 0.001). Only one of them had also metastases in other organs than the brain (bone metastases). 13 patients suffered from metastases other than brain.

Brain metastases were diagnosed in 4 out of the 110 patients (3.6%). The brain metastases were all just found with imaging and were not proofed with a biopsy. 2 suffered from a single brain metastases with a size small than 15 mm. One patient showed 2 brain metastases with the biggest size of 25 mm and one patient was found with 4 lesions in the brain with the biggest size of 25 mm. A chi-square test was conducted to examine the association between a family history of cancer and the presence of brain metastases. However, the analysis did not reveal a significant association, p > 0.999. Furthermore, a chi-square test was performed to investigate the relationship between MRI performance and the detection of brain metastases.

Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status were tested as part of the initial diagnostic workup. The majority of patients (n = 68, 61.8%) were ER-positive, while 52 (47.3%) were PR-positive. Among the cohort, 46.4% of patients were positive for both receptors, while 37.3% were negative for both receptors. 3 out of 4 patients with brain metastases were Hormon receptor negative. So, 1 out of 69 patients with a Hormon receptor positive Carcinoma and 3 out of 41 Hormon receptor negative breast cancer patients suffered from brain metastases. This is a significant finding (p < 0.001) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. a: Brain metastasis in hormonreceptor negative patients. Proportions of brain metastasis occurred in estrogen and progesterone negative patients compared with grading. b: Brain metastasis in hormonreceptor positive patients. Proportions of brain metastasis occurred in estrogen and/or progesterone positive patients compared with grading.

Fig 1

The most commonly prescribed regimen was EC THP (epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, followed by docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab), given to 67.3% of patients. Other regimens, such as carboplatin or TDM1, were less frequently administered. Among the four patients diagnosed with brain metastases, three underwent subsequent treatment involving either Gamma Knife radiosurgery or whole-brain radiation therapy. Two patients initially received EC THP, while the other two were treated with THP alone.

A logistic regression model was applied to assess the predictors of brain metastases, including age, Ki67 index, tumor grade, and tumor type. (Fig 2) Age did not significantly predict the presence of brain metastases (p > 0.05). However, Ki67 showed a marginal association with brain metastasis in one model (p = 0.054), and tumor grade was a significant predictor, with intermediate differentiated tumors (G2 vs. G3) associated with a higher risk of brain metastases (p = 0.041). We found 1 patient with brain metastases in 68 G3 tumors and 3 out of 40 G2 tumors.

Fig 2. Relation between age and ki67.

Fig 2

Bivariate scatter plot for the relationship between age (x-axis, in years) and the cell division marker (y-axis) with linear regression function (95% CI) in n = 110 patients.

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the utility of routine MRI in detecting asymptomatic brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Findings revealed a low prevalence of asymptomatic brain metastases, with only 4 of 110 patients (3.6%) diagnosed through these imaging methods. This aligns with previous research indicating that brain metastases are rarely detected in early, asymptomatic stages of HER2-positive breast cancer. For instance, Kaplan et al. (2013) found that brain metastases were infrequently observed in asymptomatic, non-metastatic HER2-positive patients, suggesting limited benefit from routine cranial imaging in this group [11] and finding no prolonged survival rate, when detecting metastasis earlier. But since this study is more than 10 years old, the question is, how the outcome would be with new therapies like Trastuzumab Deruxtecan. Maurer et al. (2018) reported that routine MRI in asymptomatic patients showed a better overall survival than symptomatic patients [12]. The low detection rate in this study suggests that, while HER2-positive status is a known risk factor, asymptomatic early-stage patients seldom present with detectable brain lesions. Instead, brain metastases tend to appear later, often with significant morbidity and rapid disease progression. This finding challenges the clinical value of routine brain imaging for all asymptomatic HER2-positive patients. Although MRI is an effective tool for imaging brain lesions, their limited sensitivity for early, asymptomatic metastases—especially in patients without additional risk factors—supports a more selective screening approach [4].

Ki67 index and tumor characteristics

In our study, we wanted to understand the relationship between age, Ki67 proliferation index, tumor grade, and the risk of brain metastasis in HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Our findings indicated that age alone did not correlate significantly with Ki67 levels, nor did it serve as a predictor for brain metastasis in our logistic regression model. The absence of a significant correlation between age and Ki67 aligns with previous studies, which have also found that Ki67—though associated with tumor aggressiveness—does not consistently correlate with patient age in breast cancer cohorts [16]. This suggests that Ki67 as a marker of proliferation reflects tumor biology more directly than demographic characteristics like age. However, while age did not show any significant association with brain metastasis, Ki67 did present a marginal association with metastasis risk (p = 0.072). This aligns with findings from Song et al. (2019), who noted that high Ki67 levels are often indicative of more aggressive tumor behavior, albeit not as a standalone predictor for metastatic spread [17]. Due to the predictive limitations of Ki67 for metastasis, it needs to be considered a part of a broader panel of markers rather than an independent prognostic tool. On the other hand, tumor grade emerged as a significant predictor for brain metastasis, with intermediate-grade tumors (G2 vs. G3) showing a notably increased risk of brain metastasis (p = 0.041). This correlation is inconsistent with literature suggesting that higher histological grades in HER2-positive breast cancer are associated with a greater likelihood of central nervous system (CNS) involvement [18,19]. According to studies, we found significant predictors like tumor size and axillary lymphnode status [20,21].

Hormon receptor status and brain metastasis

Our study found that while most patients in our cohort were estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (60.9%) and progesterone receptor (PR)-positive (47.2%), those patients without positive hormon receptors were more likely to suffer from brain metastases. This aligns with previous research that shows hormon receptor-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers often exhibit a higher risk of brain metastasis due to their aggressive nature. However, this tendency for brain metastasis does not usually appear in the early, symptom-free stages of HER2-positive breast cancer. [22,23]. A study by Garcia-Alvarez et al. (2021) indicated that while hormon receptor-negative, HER2-positive cancers are overrepresented among patients with brain metastases, brain metastases can still develop in ER-positive, HER2-positive tumors, likely influenced by other biological and molecular factors [6]. This points to a more nuanced interplay between hormon receptor status and HER2 overexpression. Furthermore, receptor discordance—where hormon receptor status shifts between the primary tumor and metastatic sites – has been documented. Sperduto et al. (2020) found that up to 25–37.5% of patients experience a loss of hormon receptor expression in brain metastases, suggesting that these tumors may become more aggressive as they progress, particularly in HER2-positive cases [24]. This evidence supports the potential value of reassessing receptor status in metastatic disease stages, as conversion from hormon receptor-positive to negative in metastatic lesions may drive a shift in treatment strategies.

Implications for routine imaging in asymptomatic HER2-positive patients

Elaborating on routine MRI for asymptomatic HER2-positive breast cancer patients, the findings from our study suggest that a broad imaging approach may be unwarranted due to the low incidence of brain metastases identified in our cohort (3.6%). The cost-effectiveness and clinical value of such routine imaging have thus been questioned, as indiscriminate imaging may lead to unnecessary costs and heightened patient anxiety without significant clinical benefit [25]. Furthermore, advanced HER2-targeted imaging techniques, such as ^68Ga-ABY-025 PET/CT and ^64Cu-DOTA-trastuzumab PET, have demonstrated higher specificity for detecting HER2-positive brain lesions. These tracers may allow for more selective screening of HER2-positive metastases and offer a potential alternative to routine imaging in low-risk cases [13,14]. Furthermore, some research proposes alternative, symptom-driven or risk-adjusted screening protocols, where patients with a higher likelihood of brain metastasis development, such as those with additional metastatic sites or certain molecular markers, might benefit more from regular imaging [15].

Our low yield of positive imaging findings rather underscores the potential benefit of refining imaging protocols to focus on patients with additional risk factors. Specifically, targeted imaging approaches like PET with HER2-specific tracers may improve early detection and reduce unnecessary imaging in lower-risk patients, supporting a more efficient and clinically valuable strategy in managing HER2-positive breast cancer patients at risk for brain metastasis. Studies highlight that, while imaging techniques like PET/CT can reduce false positives and accelerate treatment in high-risk breast cancer cohorts, they are most cost-effective when targeted to specific patient groups rather than applied universally [26]. Moreover, the cost per positive finding is significant, prompting questions about the practicality of such routine applications. Cost-effectiveness studies further support selective imaging based on a patient’s individual risk profile. A study on the economic value of PET/CT in breast cancer stages II-III highlights that PET/CT is only marginally cost-effective when applied in settings where the probability of metastasis is inherently low [27]. Such findings suggest that broad, indiscriminate imaging may contribute to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, especially when applied to early-stage, asymptomatic patients without clear indicators of metastatic disease. Thus, recent studies support a more selective approach. For example, patients with additional risk factors, such as higher-grade tumors or metastatic spread to other high-risk sites, may benefit more from targeted imaging interventions [28]. Given that HER2-positive patients with advanced or recurrent disease show a propensity for brain metastases, additional monitoring might be prioritized in patients with these features.

Moreover, research on advanced HER2-targeted imaging modalities, such as the ^68Ga-ABY-025 PET/CT, demonstrates a promising ability to selectively identify HER2-positive metastases with greater specificity than conventional imaging techniques. The small peptide tracer ABY-025, designed to bind uniquely to the HER2 receptor without competing with therapeutic antibodies, has shown potential for distinguishing HER2-positive from HER2-negative lesions, even in complex metastatic contexts [7]. In clinical studies, ^68Ga-ABY-025 PET/CT effectively quantified HER2 expression across whole-body scans, capturing dynamic changes in HER2 expression across different metastatic sites [29]. Additionally, findings suggest that ^68Ga-ABY-025 PET/CT could serve as an efficient alternative to broad routine imaging, particularly in HER2-positive breast cancer patients where routine MRI screening may yield limited value due to the low incidence of asymptomatic brain metastases [30]. This approach could help reduce unnecessary imaging, minimizing patient exposure to radiation and the likelihood of overdiagnosis.

Given these promising results, future studies on ^68Ga-ABY-025 could explore its use as a routine diagnostic tool within targeted surveillance protocols. This would involve further assessing its sensitivity and specificity across larger patient populations and expanding on cost-effectiveness analyses to clarify its value relative to traditional imaging approaches.

Limitations and future directions

This study has limitations that may impact the interpretation and generalizability of our findings. Firstly, the retrospective design introduces limitations related to data availability and accuracy, as well as potential biases from incomplete records, which could affect findings on factors associated with brain metastasis. A prospective design would enable more controlled data collection and better control for confounding factors. Additionally, our relatively small sample size (n = 110) limits statistical power, making it difficult to fully explore associations within specific patient subgroups. Moreover, our study did not include advanced molecular markers or genetic profiling, which could help identify higher-risk patients more precisely, supporting more targeted imaging approaches. We also did not evaluate newer imaging methods, such as HER2-specific PET tracers, which may offer greater specificity in detecting brain metastases in HER2-positive patients. Perhaps in the future genetic molecular profiling and artificial intelligence in breast cancer diagnosis and imaging of metastases can lead to new perspectives [31].

Conclusion

The present study indicates that routine MRI may offer limited benefit for detecting asymptomatic brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer patients due to the low prevalence and limited predictive factors observed. A more targeted imaging strategy focused on high-risk patients, such as patients with the absence of Hormon receptors and higher stage tumors, could improve cost-efficiency and clinical relevance. Future research should also explore advanced imaging modalities, like HER2-specific PET tracers, to improve specificity in detecting HER2-positive metastases.

Supporting information

S1 File. Final data set as excel sheet.

(XLSX)

pone.0334610.s001.xlsx (34.6KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Guven DC, Kaya MB, Fedai B, Ozden M, Yildirim HC, Kosemehmetoglu K, et al. HER2-low breast cancer could be associated with an increased risk of brain metastasis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2022;27(2):332–9. doi: 10.1007/s10147-021-02049-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dong R, Ji J, Liu H, He X. The evolving role of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in HER2-positive breast cancer with brain metastases. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;143:20–6. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Duchnowska R, Loibl S, Jassem J. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors for brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2018;67:71–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zimmer AS, Van Swearingen AED, Anders CK. HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastasis: a new and exciting landscape. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2022;5(4):e1274. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lu X, Gao C, Liu C, Zhuang J, Su P, Li H, et al. Identification of the key pathways and genes involved in HER2-positive breast cancer with brain metastasis. Pathol Res Pract. 2019;215(8):152475. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2019.152475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Garcia-Alvarez A, Papakonstantinou A, Oliveira M. Brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer: current and novel treatment strategies. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(12):2927. doi: 10.3390/cancers13122927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Young JR, Ressler JA, Mortimer JE, Schmolze D, Fitzgibbons M, Chen BT. Performance of enhancement on brain MRI for identifying HER2 overexpression in breast cancer brain metastases. Eur J Radiol. 2021;144:109948. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109948 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McGale J, Khurana S, Huang A, Roa T, Yeh R, Shirini D, et al. PET/CT and SPECT/CT Imaging of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. J Clin Med. 2023;12(15):4882. doi: 10.3390/jcm12154882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lin NU, Borges V, Anders C, Murthy RK, Paplomata E, Hamilton E, et al. Intracranial efficacy and survival with tucatinib plus trastuzumab and capecitabine for previously treated HER2-positive breast cancer with brain metastases in the HER2CLIMB trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(23):2610–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Warrior S, Cohen-Nowak A, Kumthekar P. Modern management and diagnostics in HER2+ breast cancer with CNS metastasis. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(11):2908. doi: 10.3390/cancers15112908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kaplan MA, Inal A, Kucukoner M, Urakci Z, Ekici F, Firat U, et al. Cranial magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Onkologie. 2013;36(4):176–81. doi: 10.1159/000349950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Maurer C, Tulpin L, Moreau M, Dumitrescu C, de Azambuja E, Paesmans M, et al. Risk factors for the development of brain metastases in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. ESMO Open. 2018;3(6):e000440. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2018-000440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kurihara H, Hamada A, Yoshida M, Shimma S, Hashimoto J, Yonemori K, et al. (64)Cu-DOTA-trastuzumab PET imaging and HER2 specificity of brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer patients. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5:8. doi: 10.1186/s13550-015-0082-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lindman H, Carlsson J, Velikyan I, Feldwisch J, Lubberink M, Sandberg D, et al. Abstract P4-01-17: Molecular imaging and quantification of HER-2 status in metastatic breast cancer by using 68Ga-ABY-025/PET-CT. Cancer Res. 2013;73(24_Supplement):P4-01-17-P4-01–17. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs13-p4-01-17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pivot X, Hackmann J, Manikhas A, Moore Y, Parikh R, Kothari D, et al. P4-17-03: incidence rate of asymptomatic brain metastases in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer screened for EGF111438/CEREBEL study. Cancer Res. 2011;71(24_Supplement):P4-17-03-P4-17–03. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-p4-17-03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mohammed A, Mahdi A, Ibrahim H. Ki-67 expression as an indicator of invasiveness in patients with breast cancer. Med J Babylon. 2018;15(4):271. doi: 10.4103/mjbl.mjbl_54_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Song B, Wang L, Zhang Y, Li N, Dai H, Xu H, et al. Combined detection of HER2, Ki67, and GSTP1 genes on the diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2019;34(2):85–90. doi: 10.1089/cbr.2018.2570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Haroon S, Hashmi AA, Khurshid A, Kanpurwala MA, Mujtuba S, Malik B, et al. Ki67 index in breast cancer: correlation with other prognostic markers and potential in pakistani patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(7):4353–8. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.7.4353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Payandeh M, Shahriari-Ahmadi A, Sadeghi M, Sadeghi E. Correlations between HER2 expression and other prognostic factors in breast cancer: inverse relations with the Ki-67 index and P53 status. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(3):1015–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dong R, Ji J, Liu H, He X. The evolving role of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in HER2-positive breast cancer with brain metastases. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;143:20–6. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Maurer C, Tulpin L, Moreau M, Dumitrescu C, de Azambuja E, Paesmans M, et al. Risk factors for the development of brain metastases in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. ESMO Open. 2018;3(6):e000440. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2018-000440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Darlix A, Griguolo G, Thezenas S, Kantelhardt E, Thomssen C, Dieci MV, et al. Hormone receptors status: a strong determinant of the kinetics of brain metastases occurrence compared with HER2 status in breast cancer. J Neurooncol. 2018;138(2):369–82. doi: 10.1007/s11060-018-2805-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Guarneri V, Giovannelli S, Ficarra G, Bettelli S, Maiorana A, Piacentini F, et al. Comparison of HER-2 and hormone receptor expression in primary breast cancers and asynchronous paired metastases: impact on patient management. Oncologist. 2008;13(8):838–44. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sperduto PW, Mesko S, Li J, Cagney D, Aizer A, Lin NU, et al. Estrogen/progesterone receptor and HER2 discordance between primary tumor and brain metastases in breast cancer and its effect on treatment and survival. Neuro Oncol. 2020;22(9):1359–67. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Diaby V, Adunlin G, Ali AA, Zeichner SB, de Lima Lopes G, Kohn CG, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(1):187–96. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3978-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hyland C, Varghese F, Yau C, Beckwith H, Khoury K, Varnado W, et al. Abstract P5-15-01: The use of 18F-FDG PET/CT as an initial staging procedure for stage II-III breast cancer reduces false positives, costs, and time to treatment: a multicenter value analysis in the I-SPY2 trial. Cancer Research. 2019;79(4_Supplement):P5-15-01. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p5-15-01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Miquel-Cases A, Teixeira S, Retèl V, Steuten L, Valdés Olmos R, Rutgers E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of 18f-Fdg Pet/Ct for screening distant metastasis in stage Ii/Iii breast cancer patients of the UK, the United States and the Netherlands. Value in Health. 2015;18(7):A337. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.123 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kaplan M, Inal A, Kucukoner M, Urakci Z, Isikdogan A. P4-17-08: is cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) necessary for staging of asymptomatic HER2−positive breast cancer patients?. Cancer Res. 2011;71(24_Supplement):P4-17-08–P4-17-08. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-p4-17-08 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sörensen J, Velikyan I, Sandberg D, Wennborg A, Feldwisch J, Tolmachev V, et al. Measuring HER2-receptor expression in metastatic breast cancer using [68Ga]ABY-025 affibody PET/CT. Theranostics. 2016;6(2):262–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alhuseinalkhudhur A, Lindman H, Liss P, Sundin T, Frejd FY, Hartman J, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-targeting [68Ga]Ga-ABY-025 PET/CT predicts early metabolic response in metastatic breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2023;64(9):1364–70. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.122.265364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Umakanthan S, Katwaroo A, Bukelo M, Gunakala S, Dsouza A, Bukelo M, et al. Role of molecular-genetic profiling and artificial intelligence in breast cancer diagnosis and insight into targeted pharmacotherapeutics. London J Med Health Res. 2024;24(10). [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Elingarami Sauli

2 Jan 2025

Dear Dr. Leser, 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elingarami Sauli, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: 

“All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Additional Editor Comments:

When responding to reviewers comments please make sure to detail your imaging protocols, with respective justification of their use in your research study.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: General Comments:

In this manuscript, the authors evaluate the utility of routine PET-CT and MRI for detecting asymptomatic brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer patients. The study addresses a clinically significant issue and provides valuable insights into the limited role of routine imaging in this population. The manuscript highlights the low detection rate of brain metastases and discusses alternative imaging strategies, including advanced HER2-specific modalities. This is an important contribution to the field of oncology imaging, particularly in optimizing cost-effective and targeted screening protocols.

However, there are several areas that require major revisions to improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall impact of the manuscript. Key concerns include the lack of detailed imaging protocols (e.g., MRI acquisition techniques), the justification for using PET-CT in the assessment of brain metastases, and a more robust discussion of limitations and implications for clinical practice. Addressing these issues is essential to strengthen the manuscript's scientific rigor and clinical relevance.

Specific comments:

1. Comment on the Use of PET-CT

In the Methods and Results sections, it is mentioned that PET-CT was used for the evaluation of brain metastases. However, FDG PET-CT is known to be inferior to contrast-enhanced MRI in detecting metastatic brain tumors (1) and generally not suitable for detecting brain tumors or metastatic brain lesions. Please clarify the purpose of using PET-CT in this study and how its findings are interpreted. Additionally, elaborate on the impact of PET-CT results on the overall conclusions of the study.

2. Comment on the Imaging Protocol for Contrast-Enhanced MRI

In the Results section, it is stated that brain metastases were detected using MRI; however, the specific imaging protocol for contrast-enhanced MRI is not provided. Studies have shown that 3D contrast-enhanced MRI is superior to 2D methods for detecting metastatic brain lesions (2). Furthermore, the ability to detect metastatic brain tumors in contrast-enhanced MRI scans depends on the imaging device (1.5T vs. 3T, etc.), the dose of contrast agent, and other factors (3) (4). Providing detailed information about the MRI protocol (e.g., 2D or 3D imaging, slice thickness, etc.) would enhance the reliability and interpretability of the results .

3. Suggestion to Limit the Analysis to MRI-Only Patients

For the diagnosis of metastatic brain lesions, it would be more consistent and reliable to limit the analysis to patients who underwent MRI, rather than including those evaluated with PET-CT. I recommend reconsidering the inclusion criteria and presenting results based solely on MRI findings.

1. Krüger S, Mottaghy FM, Buck AK, Maschke S, Kley H, Frechen D, et al. Brain metastasis in lung cancer. Comparison of cerebral MRI and 18F-FDG-PET/CT for diagnosis in the initial staging. Nuklearmedizin. 2011;50(3):101-6.

2. Kakeda S, Korogi Y, Hiai Y, Ohnari N, Moriya J, Kamada K, et al. Detection of brain metastasis at 3T: comparison among SE, IR-FSE and 3D-GRE sequences. European Radiology. 2007;17(9):2345-51.

3. Ochi T, Taoka T, Matsuda R, Sakamoto M, Akashi T, Tamamoto T, et al. Comparison between Two Separate Injections and a Single Injection of Double-dose Contrast Medium for Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of Metastatic Brain Tumors. Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences. 2014;13(4):221-9.

4. Jensen LG, Nath SK, Murphy KT, Alksne JF, Mundt AJ, Lawson JD. Difference in Number of Brain Metastases Detected using 1.5T and 3T MRI in Patients Treated with Stereotactic Radiosurgery. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2011;81(2):S300.

Reviewer #2: In this article, Leser et al. evaluated the relevant topic of proactive brain imaging in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. The authors analyzed a cohort of 153 patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive breast cancer, identifying only 4 patients with brain metastases. However, several significant limitations render this study unsuitable for publication:

-Patient Cohort Selection: The authors included patients at any disease stage, rather than focusing on those with advanced-stage disease, which is the clinical setting where brain imaging is typically considered, undermining the relevance of the findings. Furthermore, the disease stage of the patients with brain metastases is not reported.

-Screening Methodology: It appears that PET/CT scans were used for brain metastasis screening in some cases, which constitutes a major methodological flaw. As the authors themselves acknowledge, PET/CT is inadequate for detecting brain metastases. Indeed, all identified brain metastases were diagnosed via MRI, further highlighting the inappropriate reliance on PET/CT.

-Small Sample Size: The extremely low number of cases with brain metastases (n=4) makes the associations reported in the study highly unstable. Additionally, disease stage—an expectedly strong predictor of brain involvement—could heavily confound any observed associations.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Oct 16;20(10):e0334610. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334610.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


16 Jan 2025

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your great comments on our manuscript. We worked hard to revise the manuscript, and changed the whole statistics to include patients only with a brain MRI.

Reviewer #1: General Comments:

In this manuscript, the authors evaluate the utility of routine PET-CT and MRI for detecting asymptomatic brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer patients. The study addresses a clinically significant issue and provides valuable insights into the limited role of routine imaging in this population. The manuscript highlights the low detection rate of brain metastases and discusses alternative imaging strategies, including advanced HER2-specific modalities. This is an important contribution to the field of oncology imaging, particularly in optimizing cost-effective and targeted screening protocols.

However, there are several areas that require major revisions to improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall impact of the manuscript. Key concerns include the lack of detailed imaging protocols (e.g., MRI acquisition techniques), the justification for using PET-CT in the assessment of brain metastases, and a more robust discussion of limitations and implications for clinical practice. Addressing these issues is essential to strengthen the manuscript's scientific rigor and clinical relevance.

Specific comments:

1. Comment on the Use of PET-CT

In the Methods and Results sections, it is mentioned that PET-CT was used for the evaluation of brain metastases. However, FDG PET-CT is known to be inferior to contrast-enhanced MRI in detecting metastatic brain tumors (1) and generally not suitable for detecting brain tumors or metastatic brain lesions. Please clarify the purpose of using PET-CT in this study and how its findings are interpreted. Additionally, elaborate on the impact of PET-CT results on the overall conclusions of the study. Thanks for your comments. We strongly thought about it and decided to follow your suggestion in point 3.

2. Comment on the Imaging Protocol for Contrast-Enhanced MRI

In the Results section, it is stated that brain metastases were detected using MRI; however, the specific imaging protocol for contrast-enhanced MRI is not provided. Studies have shown that 3D contrast-enhanced MRI is superior to 2D methods for detecting metastatic brain lesions (2). Furthermore, the ability to detect metastatic brain tumors in contrast-enhanced MRI scans depends on the imaging device (1.5T vs. 3T, etc.), the dose of contrast agent, and other factors (3) (4). Providing detailed information about the MRI protocol (e.g., 2D or 3D imaging, slice thickness, etc.) would enhance the reliability and interpretability of the results. Thanks for the comment. We tried to add all the missing stuff.

3. Suggestion to Limit the Analysis to MRI-Only Patients

For the diagnosis of metastatic brain lesions, it would be more consistent and reliable to limit the analysis to patients who underwent MRI, rather than including those evaluated with PET-CT. I recommend reconsidering the inclusion criteria and presenting results based solely on MRI findings. We followed your suggestion and are happy, that this recreation made the paper to a better one. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

1. Krüger S, Mottaghy FM, Buck AK, Maschke S, Kley H, Frechen D, et al. Brain metastasis in lung cancer. Comparison of cerebral MRI and 18F-FDG-PET/CT for diagnosis in the initial staging. Nuklearmedizin. 2011;50(3):101-6.

2. Kakeda S, Korogi Y, Hiai Y, Ohnari N, Moriya J, Kamada K, et al. Detection of brain metastasis at 3T: comparison among SE, IR-FSE and 3D-GRE sequences. European Radiology. 2007;17(9):2345-51.

3. Ochi T, Taoka T, Matsuda R, Sakamoto M, Akashi T, Tamamoto T, et al. Comparison between Two Separate Injections and a Single Injection of Double-dose Contrast Medium for Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of Metastatic Brain Tumors. Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences. 2014;13(4):221-9.

4. Jensen LG, Nath SK, Murphy KT, Alksne JF, Mundt AJ, Lawson JD. Difference in Number of Brain Metastases Detected using 1.5T and 3T MRI in Patients Treated with Stereotactic Radiosurgery. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2011;81(2):S300.

Reviewer #2: In this article, Leser et al. evaluated the relevant topic of proactive brain imaging in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. The authors analyzed a cohort of 153 patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive breast cancer, identifying only 4 patients with brain metastases. However, several significant limitations render this study unsuitable for publication:

-Patient Cohort Selection: The authors included patients at any disease stage, rather than focusing on those with advanced-stage disease, which is the clinical setting where brain imaging is typically considered, undermining the relevance of the findings. Furthermore, the disease stage of the patients with brain metastases is not reported. We added the stages of the patients with brain metastases and will follow your suggestion in further prospective studies. Thank you for the suggestion.

-Screening Methodology: It appears that PET/CT scans were used for brain metastasis screening in some cases, which constitutes a major methodological flaw. As the authors themselves acknowledge, PET/CT is inadequate for detecting brain metastases. Indeed, all identified brain metastases were diagnosed via MRI, further highlighting the inappropriate reliance on PET/CT. Thanks for your comment. Because of your suggestion and the one from the other reviewer we limit the analysis to MRI-only patients.

-Small Sample Size: The extremely low number of cases with brain metastases (n=4) makes the associations reported in the study highly unstable. Additionally, disease stage—an expectedly strong predictor of brain involvement—could heavily confound any observed associations. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Because of your comment, we looked on the correlation between stage and lymphnode status and it was significant. So, thanks again to improve the results with your impact.

I hope that the changes meet your expectations, and are bringing our manuscript closer to publishing in your manuscript.

Greets

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments to changed Her2 Brain mets 1.25.docx

pone.0334610.s004.docx (15.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Elingarami Sauli

10 Mar 2025

Dear Dr. Leser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elingarami Sauli, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: dear authors, I have no more comments, thanks for working on the revisions.dear authors, I have no more comments, thanks for working on the revisions.dear authors, I have no more comments, thanks for working on the revisions.dear authors, I have no more comments, thanks for working on the revisions.dear authors, I have no more comments, thanks for working on the revisions.dear authors, I have no more comments, thanks for working on the revisions.

Reviewer #4: There are some significant flaws to be addressed with the manuscript.

The patient population must be better defined, why were males excluded, did all these women undergo resection with curative intent, how many received neo-adjuvant systemic therapy (consider standard of care for women with Her2 positive disease).

Was there any evidence of extra-cranial metastatic disease

At what time point was the MRI done? at diagnosis? Were these women symptomatic? Describe the size and number of lesions that were detected in these 4 women.

Please define the tumor characteristics using TNM classification, for size and nodal status, ot explain the system used.

DCIS was an exclusion criteria (obviously as by definition these cannot have metastatic disease), yet we are told in great detail how many women had DCIS, not relevant.

The spelling or Oestrogen/estrogen hormon/hormone status needs to be consistent throughout the paper.

Unfortunately the very small sample size (4 brain tumours detected) makes this study of limited utility.

Reviewer #5: In this article, the author claimed the clinical value of routine brain imaging for all asymptomatic HER2-positive patients may be limited. The patients with a higher likelihood of brain metastasis development, such as those with additional metastatic sites or certain molecular markers, might benefit more from regular imaging. In addition, HER2-specific PET imaging may improve early detection and reduce unnecessary imaging in lower-risk patients, supporting a more efficient and clinically valuable strategy in managing HER2-positive breast cancer patients at risk for brain metastasis. This is a very interesting study. But there are still a few points that confuse me.

1.In the result, the author claimed that “ The majority of tumors were classified as size category 1 (n = 469, 445.54%), while 3248 (2931.16%) were classified category 2, 13 9(8.26%) were classified category 3, and 22 19 (174.35%) were classified as category 4. “ Please supplement the grading method in the methodology section.

2.Among the 110 patients included, how many patients actually had brain metastases, and was there any situation of missed diagnosis by MRI?

3.In Discussion section, the potential value of HER2-PET imaging application has been discussed in the text before and after the Discussion. Please merge them.

4.In Discussion section, The author extensively discusses “Ki67 Index and Tumor Characteristics”, “Hormone Receptor Status and Brain Metastasis”, “Implications for Routine Imaging in Asymptomatic HER2-Positive Patients”. It is suggested that the significance of referring to related molecular indicators to guide patients to choose brain MRI should be emphasized.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

pone.0334610.s003.docx (13.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Elingarami Sauli

1 Oct 2025

Exploring the Role of Routine Brain Imaging in Detecting Asymptomatic Brain Metastases in First Diagnosed HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

PONE-D-24-55756R2

Dear Dr. Carmen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Elingarami Sauli, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

This submission can now be accepted after incorporation of all key comments from reviewers by authors, including proper addressing of all observed limitations.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #4: acceptable revisions made and concerns raised addressed in this current version

Reviewer #5: 1.In Result "The most common tumor type in the study population was invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), present in 91.8% of cases (n = 101). A small percentage of patients had invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (4.5%) or other types of cancer, such as mucinous or micropapillary carcinoma (5.5%)”. The reported percentages for tumor type distribution do not sum to 100% (91.8% + 4.5% + 5.5% = 101.8%). Please verify and correct these values.

2.In Result, “Tumor size, an essential part of the staging process, was documented for 110 patients. The majority of tumors were classified in TNM as clinial tumor size(cT)size category 1 (n = 49, 44.5%), while 32 (29.1%) were classified category cT 2, 9(8.2%) were classified category cT3, and 19 (17.3%) were classified as cT4”. The total number of cases across cT categories sums to 109 (49+32+9+19) rather than the documented 110 patients. And please clarify this discrepancy."Please include in the Methods section the size criteria used for cT classification to improve reproducibility.

3.Comment on numerical formatting: When numbers begin a sentence, they should be written in word form (e.g., 3 out of 4 patients with brain metastases were Hormon receptor negative.'). Please revise all instances accordingly.

4.The manuscript contains several unclear or ambiguous statements. For example: "Only one of them had also metastases in other organs than the brain (bone metastases). 13 patients suffered from metastases other than brain." Suggested revision: Among the 110 patients, 17 (right?) had distant metastases, including 4 with brain metastases.

5.Additional suggestions:

For percentage reporting: "Consider presenting percentages with one decimal place consistently throughout the manuscript for uniformity."

For data verification: "Please double-check all numerical values in the manuscript for internal consistency."

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

pone.0334610.s005.docx (13.2KB, docx)

Acceptance letter

Elingarami Sauli

PONE-D-24-55756R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Leser,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Elingarami Sauli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Final data set as excel sheet.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0334610.s001.xlsx (34.6KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comments to changed Her2 Brain mets 1.25.docx

    pone.0334610.s004.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.docx

    pone.0334610.s003.docx (13.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments Reviewer4.25.docx

    pone.0334610.s006.docx (14.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments.docx

    pone.0334610.s005.docx (13.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES