| Literature DB >> 15318940 |
Manuelito A Madrid1, Raymundo W Lo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) is emerging as a practical, cost-effective, and valid alternative to fluorescent in situ hybridization in testing for gene alteration, especially in centers primarily working with immunohistochemistry (IHC).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2004 PMID: 15318940 PMCID: PMC549176 DOI: 10.1186/bcr915
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Evaluation of Her-2/neu gene status using chromogenic in situ hybridization
| Amplification | Her-2/ |
| High-level | >10 copies or large cluster of amplicon per nucleus in >50% of cancer cells |
| Low-level | 6–10 copies or small cluster of amplicon per nucleus in >50% of cancer cellsa |
| None | 1–5 copies per nucleus of cancer cellsb |
aVerify gene amplification or chromosome 17 aneuploidy with SPOT-Light Chromosome 17 Centromeric Probe. bIf 3–5 copies per nucleus, verify chromosomal aneuploidy with SPOT-Light Chromosome 17 Centromeric Probe.
Breast tumor samples and their corresponding immunohistochemistry (IHC), chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) results, and tumor histologic grade
| IHC score | No. of tests | CISH amplification | Histologic grade | ||||
| Negative | Low | High | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 0 | 40 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33 | 6 |
| 1+ | 40 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 28 | 9 |
| 2+ | 40 | 22 | 8 | 10 | 0 | 24 | 16 |
| 3+ | 40 | 0 | 9 | 31 | 0 | 27 | 13 |
| Total | 160 | 102 | 17 | 41 | 4 | 112 | 44 |
Correlation of chromogenic in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry in archival breast tumor samples
| Chromogenic | Immunohistochemistry | Total | |
| Negative (0 and 1+) | Positive (2+ and 3+) | ||
| No amplification | 80 | 22 | 102 |
| With amplification | 0 | 58 | 58 |
| Total | 80 | 80 | 160 |
Comparison of age strata with tumor histologic grade, immunohistochemistry and chromogenic in situ hybridization results
| Parameter | Age <50 | Age ≥ 50 | Total |
| Immunohistochemistry | |||
| Negative (0 and 1+) | 33 (41.25%) | 47 (58.75%) | 80 |
| Positive (2+ and 3+) | 41 (51.25%) | 39 (48.75%) | 80 |
| Total | 74 | 86 | 160 |
| Chromogenic | |||
| No amplification | 43 (42.16%) | 59 (57.84%) | 102 |
| With amplification | 31 (53.44%) | 27 (46.55%) | 58 |
| Total | 74 | 86 | 160 |
| Histologic grade | |||
| 1 | 0 (0.00%) | 4 (100.00%) | 4 |
| 2 | 53 (47.32%) | 59 (52.68%) | 112 |
| 3 | 21 (47.73%) | 23 (52.23%) | 44 |
| Total | 74 | 86 | 160 |
Comparison of Her2/neu immunohistochemistry and chromogenic in situ hybridization results with tumor histologic grades
| Histologic grade | Immunohistochemistry Her2/ | ||
| Negative (0 and 1+) | 2+ | 3+ | |
| 1 | 4 (5.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) |
| 2 | 61 (76.25) | 24 (60) | 27 (67.50) |
| 3 | 15 (18.75) | 16 (40) | 13 (32.50) |
| Histologic grade | Chromogenic | ||
| No amplification | With amplification | ||
| Low | High | ||
| 1 | 4 (3.92) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) |
| 2 | 75 (73.53) | 12 (70.59) | 25 (60.98) |
| 3 | 23 (22.55) | 5 (29.41) | 16 (39.02) |