Literature DB >> 15113815

HER-2 testing in breast cancer using parallel tissue-based methods.

Hadi Yaziji1, Lynn C Goldstein, Todd S Barry, Robert Werling, Harry Hwang, Georgiana K Ellis, Julie R Gralow, Robert B Livingston, Allen M Gown.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Testing for HER-2 oncogene in breast cancer has increased because of its role as a prognostic and predictive factor. Some advocate gene testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) vs protein testing by immunohistochemistry as the method which most accurately evaluates and predicts response to the anti-HER-2 antibody, trastuzumab. However, critical examination of FISH on a screening basis has yet to be performed.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the correlation between FISH and immunohistochemistry results by determining HER-2/neu gene status on tumor sections with indeterminate immunohistochemistry results (2+ score), confirm gene amplification on tumor sections with positive results (3+ score), and verify gene status on tumor sections with negative results (0 or 1+ score). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A quality control and quality assurance program for HER-2 testing by FISH, which used tumor specimens from 2963 patients (median age, 56 years) with breast cancer received from 135 hospitals and cancer centers in 29 states, was performed at a reference laboratory from January 1, 1999, to May 15, 2003. Every specimen evaluated by FISH was parallel tested with immunohistochemistry tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: With FISH as the presumed standard testing method, the positive and negative predictive values and sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 3260 clinical HER-2 tests by FISH were performed on 2963 serially referred breast cancer specimens. Of these, 2933 tests were successful and 2913 breast cancer specimens had both FISH and immunohistochemistry results available. With FISH as the standard testing method, the positive predictive value of positive immunohistochemistry score (3+) was 91.6%, and the negative predictive value of negative immunohistochemistry score (0 or 1+) was 97.2%. The sensitivity of immunohistochemistry tests, including tumor sections with scores of 2+ or 3+, was 92.6% and the specificity of immunohistochemistry tests with scores of 3+ was 98.8%. The FISH test had a significantly higher failure rate (5% vs 0.08%) and reagent cost (140 dollars vs 10 dollars), and longer testing (36 hours vs 4 hours) and interpretation times (7 minutes vs 45 seconds) vs immunohistochemistry tests.
CONCLUSIONS: A testing algorithm for HER-2 determination is most efficient by using immunohistochemistry as the method of choice, with FISH performed for cancers with indeterminate results (2+ score). Successful quality control and quality assurance programs are a prerequisite for such approaches.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15113815     DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.16.1972

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  102 in total

1.  Effect of treatment and mammography detection on breast cancer survival over time: 1990-2007.

Authors:  Henry G Kaplan; Judith A Malmgren; Mary K Atwood; Gregory S Calip
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Analysis of HER2 gene amplification using an automated fluorescence in situ hybridization signal enumeration system.

Authors:  Rachel Stevens; Imad Almanaseer; Miguel Gonzalez; Derin Caglar; Ryan A Knudson; Rhett P Ketterling; Daniel S Schrock; Thomas A Seemayer; Julia A Bridge
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.568

3.  [Molecular protocol for HER2/neu analysis in breast carcinoma].

Authors:  Montse Verdú Artufel; Anna Colomer Valero; Ruth Román Lladó; Nadina Erill Sagalés; Miquel Calvo Llorca; Abelardo Moreno Carazo; Carlos Cordón Cardó; Xavier Puig Torrus
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.405

4.  Frequency and reliability of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER2 in breast carcinoma determined by immunohistochemistry in Australasia: results of the RCPA Quality Assurance Program.

Authors:  Glenn D Francis; Margaret Dimech; Leanne Giles; Alison Hopkins
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 5.  Challenges to the translation of genomic information into clinical practice and health policy: Utilization, preferences and economic value.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Su-Ying Liang; Stephanie Van Bebber
Journal:  Curr Opin Mol Ther       Date:  2008-06

6.  Genomic testing and therapies for breast cancer in clinical practice.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Kathryn A Phillips; Su-Ying Liang; Michael J Hassett; Carol Keohane; Elena B Elkin; Joanne Armstrong; Michele Toscano
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.840

7.  A phase 2 study of 16α-[18F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol positron emission tomography (FES-PET) as a marker of hormone sensitivity in metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Authors:  Lanell M Peterson; Brenda F Kurland; Erin K Schubert; Jeanne M Link; V K Gadi; Jennifer M Specht; Janet F Eary; Peggy Porter; Lalitha K Shankar; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 8.  Newer developments in immunohistology.

Authors:  A S-Y Leong; T Y-M Leong
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Phase III, double-blind, randomized study comparing lapatinib plus paclitaxel with placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Angelo Di Leo; Henry L Gomez; Zeba Aziz; Zanete Zvirbule; Jose Bines; Michael C Arbushites; Stephanie F Guerrera; Maria Koehler; Cristina Oliva; Steven H Stein; Lisa S Williams; Judy Dering; Richard S Finn; Michael F Press
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-10-27       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Body size and risk of luminal, HER2-overexpressing, and triple-negative breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Amanda I Phipps; Kathleen E Malone; Peggy L Porter; Janet R Daling; Christopher I Li
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.