CONTEXT: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a common method used to determine HER-2 status in breast cancer. Limited information is available concerning reproducibility of FISH in determining HER-2 gene amplification. OBJECTIVE: To present proficiency testing results of FISH for HER-2 conducted by the Cytogenetics Resource Committee of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics. DESIGN: During the past 5 years, unstained sections from 9 invasive breast carcinomas were used for HER-2 FISH proficiency testing, allowing for comparison of FISH results among a large number of laboratories. Additional data were collected using an educational (ungraded) challenge and supplemental questions in the surveys. RESULTS: The number of laboratories participating in HER-2 FISH proficiency testing has increased steadily during the past 5 years (from 35 in 2000 to 139 in 2004). Reproducibility of test results among laboratories was excellent for breast tumors with low copy number (no HER-2 amplification) and for breast tumors with high copy number (HER-2 amplification). However, there was considerable variation in interpretation of results for a tumor with low-level HER-2 amplification that was tested on 2 separate occasions. Responses to supplemental questions indicated that there was a need for consensus on the use of a separate equivocal/borderline interpretative category and the need for standardization of cutoff values used to define interpretative categories. CONCLUSIONS: The College of American Pathologists proficiency survey programs provide useful information concerning the reproducibility of clinical testing for HER-2 by FISH and reflect clinical interpretation of HER-2 FISH analyses from laboratories across the country.
CONTEXT: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a common method used to determine HER-2 status in breast cancer. Limited information is available concerning reproducibility of FISH in determining HER-2 gene amplification. OBJECTIVE: To present proficiency testing results of FISH for HER-2 conducted by the Cytogenetics Resource Committee of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics. DESIGN: During the past 5 years, unstained sections from 9 invasive breast carcinomas were used for HER-2 FISH proficiency testing, allowing for comparison of FISH results among a large number of laboratories. Additional data were collected using an educational (ungraded) challenge and supplemental questions in the surveys. RESULTS: The number of laboratories participating in HER-2 FISH proficiency testing has increased steadily during the past 5 years (from 35 in 2000 to 139 in 2004). Reproducibility of test results among laboratories was excellent for breast tumors with low copy number (no HER-2 amplification) and for breast tumors with high copy number (HER-2 amplification). However, there was considerable variation in interpretation of results for a tumor with low-level HER-2 amplification that was tested on 2 separate occasions. Responses to supplemental questions indicated that there was a need for consensus on the use of a separate equivocal/borderline interpretative category and the need for standardization of cutoff values used to define interpretative categories. CONCLUSIONS: The College of American Pathologists proficiency survey programs provide useful information concerning the reproducibility of clinical testing for HER-2 by FISH and reflect clinical interpretation of HER-2 FISH analyses from laboratories across the country.
Authors: Helen Swede; David I Gregorio; Susan H Tannenbaum; Jessica A Brockmeyer; Christine Ambrosone; Lori L Wilson; Mellisa A Pensa; Lou Gonsalves; Richard G Stevens; Carolyn D Runowicz Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Carlos Gómez-Martín; Angel Concha; José María Corominas; Tomás García-Caballero; Elena García-García; Mar Iglesias; José Antonio López; Santiago Ramón y Cajal; Federico Rojo; José Palacios; Francisco Vera-Sempere; Enrique Aranda; Ramon Colomer; Pilar García-Alfonso; Pilar Garrido; Fernando Rivera; Fernando López-Ríos Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Joan Albanell; Xavier Andreu; María José Calasanz; Angel Concha; José María Corominas; Tomás García-Caballero; José Antonio López; Fernando López-Ríos; Santiago Ramón y Cajal; Francisco J Vera-Sempere; Ramón Colomer; Miguel Martín; Emilio Alba; Antonio González-Martín; Antonio Llombart; Ana Lluch; José Palacios Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Coya Tapia; Spasenija Savic; Urs Wagner; René Schönegg; Hedvika Novotny; Bruno Grilli; Michelle Herzog; Audrey Devito Barascud; Inti Zlobec; Gieri Cathomas; Luigi Terracciano; Georg Feichter; Lukas Bubendorf Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Hiroaki Nitta; Beatrice Hauss-Wegrzyniak; Megan Lehrkamp; Adrian E Murillo; Fabien Gaire; Michael Farrell; Eric Walk; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Masafumi Kurosumi; Manfred Dietel; Lin Wang; Margaret Loftus; James Pettay; Raymond R Tubbs; Thomas M Grogan Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 2.644