PURPOSE: Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) is a new modification of the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique for detection of oncogene amplification in archival tumor samples. In CISH, the oncogene probe is detected using a peroxidase reaction, allowing use of transmitted light microscopy. We compared detection of HER-2/neu amplification by CISH with a Food and Drug Administration-approved two-color FISH test in an interlaboratory setting. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples from 197 breast cancers were analyzed for HER-2 amplification by CISH. Two-color FISH (PathVysion) CISH of 17 centromere was done if the observer considered it necessary to ascertain amplification status in tumors with borderline HER-2 CISH copy numbers. RESULTS: Paired CISH/FISH results were available from 192 (97%) of 197 cases, no clear difference in success rates of either method was observed. Centromere 17 CISH was considered necessary in seven tumors. CISH and two-color FISH results were concordant in 180 cases (93.8%). There were 92 and 88 tumors found HER-2 amplified and nonamplified, respectively, by both methods. Eight tumors were amplified by CISH but not by FISH, and four tumors exhibited the opposite condition (kappa coefficient 0.875). In 7 of 12 cases differences between the two methods could have related to a lack of CISH chromosome 17 information. The remaining cases were explained by difficult histology (ductal carcinoma in situ, poor representativity, dense lymphocytic infiltration, or intratumoral heterogeneity). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that CISH could provide an accurate and practical alternative to FISH for clinical diagnosis of HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in archival formalin-fixed breast cancer samples.
PURPOSE: Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) is a new modification of the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique for detection of oncogene amplification in archival tumor samples. In CISH, the oncogene probe is detected using a peroxidase reaction, allowing use of transmitted light microscopy. We compared detection of HER-2/neu amplification by CISH with a Food and Drug Administration-approved two-color FISH test in an interlaboratory setting. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples from 197 breast cancers were analyzed for HER-2 amplification by CISH. Two-color FISH (PathVysion) CISH of 17 centromere was done if the observer considered it necessary to ascertain amplification status in tumors with borderline HER-2 CISH copy numbers. RESULTS: Paired CISH/FISH results were available from 192 (97%) of 197 cases, no clear difference in success rates of either method was observed. Centromere 17 CISH was considered necessary in seven tumors. CISH and two-color FISH results were concordant in 180 cases (93.8%). There were 92 and 88 tumors found HER-2 amplified and nonamplified, respectively, by both methods. Eight tumors were amplified by CISH but not by FISH, and four tumors exhibited the opposite condition (kappa coefficient 0.875). In 7 of 12 cases differences between the two methods could have related to a lack of CISH chromosome 17 information. The remaining cases were explained by difficult histology (ductal carcinoma in situ, poor representativity, dense lymphocytic infiltration, or intratumoral heterogeneity). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that CISH could provide an accurate and practical alternative to FISH for clinical diagnosis of HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in archival formalin-fixed breast cancer samples.
Authors: S Di Palma; N Collins; C Faulkes; B Ping; G Ferns; B Haagsma; G Layer; M W Kissin; M G Cook Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2007-02-09 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: H Sartelet; E Lagonotte; M Lorenzato; I Duval; C Lechki; C Rigaud; J Cucherousset; A Durlach; O Graesslin; P Abboud; M Doco-Fenzy; C Quereux; B Costa; M Polette; J-N Munck; P Birembaut Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Sabine Riethdorf; Bernhard Hoegel; Birgit John; German Ott; Peter Fritz; Susanne Thon; Thomas Loening; Klaus Pantel Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Matthew Maurer; Tao Su; Lao H Saal; Susan Koujak; Benjamin D Hopkins; Christina R Barkley; Jiaping Wu; Subhadra Nandula; Bhaskar Dutta; Yuli Xie; Y Rebecca Chin; Da-In Kim; Jennifer S Ferris; Sofia K Gruvberger-Saal; Mervi Laakso; Xiaomei Wang; Lorenzo Memeo; Albert Rojtman; Tulio Matos; Jennifer S Yu; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Jorma Isola; Mary Beth Terry; Alex Toker; Gordon B Mills; Jean J Zhao; Vundavalli V V S Murty; Hanina Hibshoosh; Ramon Parsons Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Tomás García-Caballero; Dorthe Grabau; Andrew R Green; John Gregory; Arno Schad; Elke Kohlwes; Ian O Ellis; Sarah Watts; Jens Mollerup Journal: Histopathology Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.087