OBJECTIVE: To develop a fully automated, rapid, molecular-based assay that accurately and objectively evaluates sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) from breast cancer patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Intraoperative analysis for the presence of metastatic cancer in SLNs from breast cancer patients lacks sensitivity. Even with immunohistochemical staining (IHC) and time-consuming review, alarming discordance in the interpretation of SLN has been observed. METHOD: A total of 43 potential markers were evaluated for the ability to accurately characterize lymph node specimens from breast cancer patients as compared with complete histologic analysis including IHC. Selected markers then underwent external validation on 90 independent SLN specimens using rapid, multiplex quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (QRT-PCR) assays. Finally, 18 SLNs were analyzed using a completely automated RNA isolation, reverse transcription, and quantitative PCR instrument (GeneXpert). RESULTS: : Following analysis of potential markers, promising markers were evaluated to establish relative level of expression cutoff values that maximized classification accuracy. A validation set of 90 SLNs from breast cancer patients was prospectively characterized using 4 markers individually or in combinations, and the results compared with histologic analysis. A 2-marker assay was found to be 97.8% accurate (94% sensitive, 100% specific) compared with histologic analysis. The fully automated GeneXpert instrument produced comparable and reproducible results in less than 35 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid, fully automated QRT-PCR assay definitively characterizes breast cancer SLN with accuracy equal to conventional pathology. This approach is superior to intraoperative SLN analysis and can provide standardized, objective results to assist in pathologic diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a fully automated, rapid, molecular-based assay that accurately and objectively evaluates sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) from breast cancerpatients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Intraoperative analysis for the presence of metastatic cancer in SLNs from breast cancerpatients lacks sensitivity. Even with immunohistochemical staining (IHC) and time-consuming review, alarming discordance in the interpretation of SLN has been observed. METHOD: A total of 43 potential markers were evaluated for the ability to accurately characterize lymph node specimens from breast cancerpatients as compared with complete histologic analysis including IHC. Selected markers then underwent external validation on 90 independent SLN specimens using rapid, multiplex quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (QRT-PCR) assays. Finally, 18 SLNs were analyzed using a completely automated RNA isolation, reverse transcription, and quantitative PCR instrument (GeneXpert). RESULTS: : Following analysis of potential markers, promising markers were evaluated to establish relative level of expression cutoff values that maximized classification accuracy. A validation set of 90 SLNs from breast cancerpatients was prospectively characterized using 4 markers individually or in combinations, and the results compared with histologic analysis. A 2-marker assay was found to be 97.8% accurate (94% sensitive, 100% specific) compared with histologic analysis. The fully automated GeneXpert instrument produced comparable and reproducible results in less than 35 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid, fully automated QRT-PCR assay definitively characterizes breast cancer SLN with accuracy equal to conventional pathology. This approach is superior to intraoperative SLN analysis and can provide standardized, objective results to assist in pathologic diagnosis.
Authors: C Chao; S L Wong; D Ackermann; D Simpson; M B Carter; C M Brown; M J Edwards; K M McMasters Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Siva Raja; Talal El-Hefnawy; Lori A Kelly; Melissa L Chestney; James D Luketich; Tony E Godfrey Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: William E Gillanders; Kaidi Mikhitarian; Renee Hebert; Patrick D Mauldin; Yuko Palesch; Christian Walters; Marshall M Urist; G Bruce Mann; Gerard Doherty; Virginia M Herrmann; Arnold D Hill; Oleg Eremin; Mohamed El-Sheemy; Richard K Orr; Alvaro A Valle; Michael A Henderson; Robert L Dewitty; Sonia L Sugg; Eric Frykberg; Karen Yeh; Richard M Bell; John S Metcalf; Bruce M Elliott; Thomas Brothers; Jay Robison; Michael Mitas; David J Cole Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Liqiang Xi; Michael C Coello; Virginia R Litle; Siva Raja; William E Gooding; Samuel A Yousem; Talal El-Hefnawy; Rodney J Landreneau; James D Luketich; Tony E Godfrey Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Steven J Hughes; Liqiang Xi; William E Gooding; David J Cole; Michael Mitas; John Metcalf; Rohit Bhargava; David Dabbs; Jesus Ching; Lynn Kozma; William McMillan; Tony E Godfrey Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Robert L Ferris; Liqiang Xi; Raja R Seethala; Jon Chan; Shaun Desai; Benjamin Hoch; William Gooding; Tony E Godfrey Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Robert L Ferris; Michael T Lotze; Stanley P L Leong; David S B Hoon; Donald L Morton Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 5.150