PURPOSE: HER2 is a clinically important tumor marker in breast cancer; however, there is controversy regarding which method reliably measures HER2 status. We compared three HER2 laboratory methods: immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR), to predict disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) after adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy in node-positive breast cancer patients. METHODS: This is a Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) study, using 524 tumor blocks collected from breast cancer patients registered to clinical trial CALGB 8541. IHC employed CB11 and AO-11-854 monoclonal antibodies; FISH used PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe kit; PCR utilized differential PCR (D-PCR) methodology. RESULTS: Cases HER2 positive by IHC, FISH and D-PCR were 24%, 17%, and 18%, respectively. FISH and IHC were clearly related (kappa = 64.8%). All three methods demonstrated a similar relationship for DFS and OS. By any method, for patients with HER2-negative tumors, there was little or no effect of dose of adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy. For patients with HER2-positive tumors, all three methods predicted a benefit from dose-intense (high-dose) compared with low- or moderate-dose adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy. CONCLUSION: FISH is a reliable method to predict clinical outcome following adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy for stage II breast cancer patients. There is a moderate level of concordance among the three methods (IHC, FISH, PCR). None of the methods is clearly superior. Although IHC-positive/FISH-positive tumors yielded the greatest interaction with dose of therapy in predicting outcome, no combination of assays tested was statistically superior.
PURPOSE:HER2 is a clinically important tumor marker in breast cancer; however, there is controversy regarding which method reliably measures HER2 status. We compared three HER2 laboratory methods: immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR), to predict disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) after adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy in node-positive breast cancerpatients. METHODS: This is a Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) study, using 524 tumor blocks collected from breast cancerpatients registered to clinical trial CALGB 8541. IHC employed CB11 and AO-11-854 monoclonal antibodies; FISH used PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe kit; PCR utilized differential PCR (D-PCR) methodology. RESULTS: Cases HER2 positive by IHC, FISH and D-PCR were 24%, 17%, and 18%, respectively. FISH and IHC were clearly related (kappa = 64.8%). All three methods demonstrated a similar relationship for DFS and OS. By any method, for patients with HER2-negative tumors, there was little or no effect of dose of adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy. For patients with HER2-positive tumors, all three methods predicted a benefit from dose-intense (high-dose) compared with low- or moderate-dose adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy. CONCLUSION: FISH is a reliable method to predict clinical outcome following adjuvant doxorubicin-based therapy for stage II breast cancerpatients. There is a moderate level of concordance among the three methods (IHC, FISH, PCR). None of the methods is clearly superior. Although IHC-positive/FISH-positive tumors yielded the greatest interaction with dose of therapy in predicting outcome, no combination of assays tested was statistically superior.
Authors: Michael F Press; Guido Sauter; Marc Buyse; Leslie Bernstein; Roberta Guzman; Angela Santiago; Ivonne E Villalobos; Wolfgang Eiermann; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Miguel Martin; Nicholas Robert; John Crown; Valerie Bee; Henry Taupin; Kerry J Flom; Isabelle Tabah-Fisch; Giovanni Pauletti; Mary-Ann Lindsay; Alessandro Riva; Dennis J Slamon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peggy L Porter; William E Barlow; I-Tien Yeh; Ming Gang Lin; Xiaopu P Yuan; Elizabeth Donato; George W Sledge; Charles L Shapiro; James N Ingle; Charles M Haskell; Kathy S Albain; James M Roberts; Robert B Livingston; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-12-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Deborah A Marshall; Jennifer S Haas; Elena B Elkin; Su-Ying Liang; Michael J Hassett; Ilia Ferrusi; Jane E Brock; Stephanie L Van Bebber Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A K Koutras; K T Kalogeras; M-A Dimopoulos; R M Wirtz; U Dafni; E Briasoulis; D Pectasides; H Gogas; C Christodoulou; G Aravantinos; G Zografos; E Timotheadou; P Papakostas; H Linardou; E Razis; T Economopoulos; H P Kalofonos; G Fountzilas Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-11-04 Impact factor: 7.640