| Literature DB >> 16420697 |
Andreea Nistor1, Peter H Watson, Norman Pettigrew, Karim Tabiti, Angelika Dawson, Yvonne Myal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of determining the status of HER-2/neu amplification in breast cancer patients is well accepted. Although immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the most frequently used method to assess the over-expression of HER-2 protein, fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) is recognized as the "gold standard" for the determining of HER-2/neu status. The greatest discordance between the two methods occurs among breast tumors that receive an indeterminate IHC score of 2+. More recently, a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay using the LightCycler(R) has been developed for quantifying HER-2/neu gene amplification. In this study, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of a commercially available LightCycler assay as it compares to FISH. To determine whether this assay provides an accurate alternative for the determination of HER-2/neu status, we focused primarily on tumors that were deemed indeterminate or borderline status by IHC.Entities:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16420697 PMCID: PMC1382241 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6890-6-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Clin Pathol ISSN: 1472-6890
Contingency table showing the breast tumors included in our study categorized according to the cutoff points established for each test (as described in Material and Methods).
| - | + | |
| - | 32 | 2 |
| + | 1 | 4 |
Comparison of HER-2/neu status assessed by FISH and Real-Time PCR in 39 breast cancer samples deemed 2+ by IHC
| 1 | 1.83 | 1.83 | 1.00 | - | 1.33 | - |
| 2 | 1.45 | 1.60 | 1.10 | - | 0.48 | - |
| 3 | 1.18 | 1.23 | 1.04 | - | 0.65 | - |
| 4 | 1.35 | 1.27 | 0.94 | - | 1.3 | - |
| 5 | 1.48 | 1.75 | 1.18 | - | 1.5 | - |
| 6 | 1.37 | 1.37 | 1.00 | - | 1.74 | - |
| 7 | 2.40 | 3.21 | 1.34 | - | 0.66 | - |
| 8 | 1.88 | 1.73 | 0.92 | - | 1.35 | - |
| 9 | 6.22 | 5.85 | 0.94 | - | 1.46 | - |
| 10 | 1.77 | 1.75 | 0.99 | - | 1.62 | - |
| 11 | 1.28 | 1.28 | 1.00 | - | 1.49 | - |
| 12 | 1.72 | 1.68 | 0.98 | - | 1.52 | - |
| 13 | 1.53 | 1.50 | 0.98 | - | 1.42 | - |
| 14 | 1.80 | 1.78 | 0.99 | - | 1.43 | - |
| 15 | 3.30 | 3.22 | 0.98 | - | 1.18 | - |
| 16 | 2.47 | 2.45 | 0.99 | - | 1.59 | - |
| 17 | 1.73 | 1.82 | 1.05 | - | 0.41 | - |
| 18 | 1.70 | 1.73 | 1.02 | - | 1.53 | - |
| 19 | 1.83 | 1.93 | 1.05 | - | 0.35 | - |
| 20 | 3.03 | 3.55 | 1.17 | - | 1.58 | - |
| 21 | 1.97 | 1.55 | 0.79 | - | 1.65 | - |
| 22 | 1.68 | 1.72 | 1.02 | - | 1.60 | - |
| 23 | 1.40 | 1.20 | 0.86 | - | 1.39 | - |
| 24 | 1.27 | 1.80 | 1.42 | - | 1.77 | - |
| 25 | 1.20 | 1.18 | 0.98 | - | 1.68 | - |
| 26 | 1.07 | 1.07 | 1.00 | - | 0.44 | - |
| 27 | 1.10 | 1.08 | 0.98 | - | 0.76 | - |
| 28 | 1.98 | 2.40 | 1.21 | - | 1.49 | - |
| 29 | 1.85 | 2.58 | 1.39 | - | 1.96 | - |
| 30 | 2.70 | 3.22 | 1.19 | - | 1.76 | - |
| 31 | 1.95 | 1.97 | 1.01 | - | 1.84 | - |
| 32 | 4.17 | 6.85 | 1.64 | - | 1.67 | - |
| 36 | 1.92 | 6.77 | 3.53 | + | 3.91 | + |
| 37 | 1.77 | 16.70 | 9.44 | + | 11.10 | + |
| 38 | 2.00 | 5.87 | 2.94 | + | 2.09 | + |
| 39 | 2.00 | 8.15 | 4.08 | + | 2.39 | + |
CEP 17 = mean/cell of the chromosome 17 centromere probe signals HER-2 = mean/cell of the HER-2/neu probe signals
FISH Ratio = the ratio between HER-2 and CEP 17
Real-Time PCR Ratio = the normalized ratio between HER-2 and the reference gene (gastrin)
"+" = positive, "-"=negative. Cases (8%) that were discordant between PCR and FISH assays are highlighted.
Figure 1Concordance between FISH and real-time PCR in IHC 2+ cases (92%).