Literature DB >> 16532444

Comparison of two antibodies for immunohistochemical evaluation of epidermal growth factor receptor expression in colorectal carcinomas, adenomas, and normal mucosa.

Rohit Bhargava1, Beiyun Chen, David S Klimstra, Leonard B Saltz, Cyrus Hedvat, Laura H Tang, William Gerald, Julie Teruya-Feldstein, Philip B Paty, Jing Qin, Jinru Shia.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immunohistochemical staining for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has been used as a criterion for the selection of patients with colon cancer for anti-EGFR therapy. Two antibodies, the PharmDx kit and the 31G7 clone, are used commonly for immunohistochemistry by various laboratories. No comparative studies on the performance of these 2 antibodies are available.
METHODS: EGFR status was evaluated in 744 tissue microarray core samples from primary and metastatic colorectal carcinomas, colorectal adenomas, and normal colorectal mucosa with both the PharmDx kit and the clone 31G7 monoclonal antibodies. The stains were compared for staining intensity by using an automated image-analysis system. The intensity of positive staining (brown color) was measured on a scale from 0 to 255. The staining intensity also was scored manually as 0, 1 +, 2 +, and 3 +.
RESULTS: Statistically, the median staining intensities scored by the automated system between the 2 antibodies did not differ significantly, although, within each category of samples (normal, adenoma, carcinoma, and metastases), the PharmDx antibody staining was slightly more intense than the clone 31G7 antibody staining. There was a linear correlation between automated image-analysis and manual scoring categories. The median automated image-analysis intensity scores for the 4 manual scoring categories with the PharmDx kit were as follows: 0 staining, 67.5; 1 + staining, 75.5; 2 + staining, 89.6; and 3 + staining, 106.0. The median automated image-analysis intensity scores for the 4 manual scoring categories with the clone 31G7 antibody were as follows: 0 staining, 71.3; 1 + staining, 73.6; 2 + staining, 84.6; and 3 + staining, 99.1. The classification of tumors as EGFR-negative (0 staining) or positive (1 +, 2 +, or 3 + staining) was concordant in 151 of 160 carcinomas (94.4%) with 2 antibodies using manual scoring. Five samples (3%) that scored 1 + with the PharmDx kit antibody scored 0 with the clone 31G7 antibody; whereas 4 samples (2.5%) that scored 1 + with the clone 31G7 antibody scored 0 with the PharmDx kit antibody.
CONCLUSIONS: The EGFR expression results obtained by immunohistochemistry using both the EGFR PharmaDx kit and the 31G7 clone were comparable. Either antibody may be used for immunohistochemical detection of EGFR in colorectal carcinomas. In addition, manual scoring had an excellent correlation with automated scoring. 2006 American Cancer Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16532444     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21782

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  9 in total

1.  A phase 2 trial of erlotinib in patients with previously treated squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.

Authors:  David H Ilson; David Kelsen; Manish Shah; Gary Schwartz; Douglas A Levine; Jeff Boyd; Marinela Capanu; Benjamin Miron; David Klimstra
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  High-sensitivity epidermal growth factor receptor immunostaining for colorectal carcinomas, compared with EGFR PharmDx™: a study of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Kazuya Shiogama; Trai Wongsiri; Yasuyoshi Mizutani; Ken-ichi Inada; Yutaka Tsutsumi
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2012-11-20

Review 3.  [Molecular targets for colon cancer. VEGF, EGFR - and what else?].

Authors:  C Röcken
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.011

4.  Immunohistochemical detection of receptor tyrosine kinases c-kit, EGF-R, and PDGF-R in colorectal adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Jan Friederichs; Claus W H von Weyhern; Robert Rosenberg; Dietrich Doll; Raymonde Busch; Florian Lordick; Jörg Rüdiger Siewert; Mario Sarbia
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Epidermal growth factor receptor immunohistochemistry: comparison of antibodies and cutoff points to predict benefit from gefitinib in a phase 3 placebo-controlled study in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Fred R Hirsch; Rafal Dziadziuszko; Nick Thatcher; Helen Mann; Claire Watkins; Dinah V Parums; Georgina Speake; Brian Holloway; Paul A Bunn; Wilbur A Franklin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Immunohistochemical discrimination of wild-type EGFR from EGFRvIII in fixed tumour specimens using anti-EGFR mAbs ICR9 and ICR10.

Authors:  H Modjtahedi; S A Khelwatty; R S Kirk; A M Seddon; S Essapen; C A Del Vecchio; A J Wong; S Eccles
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  The level of epidermal growth factor receptors expression is correlated with the advancement of colorectal adenoma: validation of a surface biomarker.

Authors:  Nicolas Williet; Carmen Adina Petcu; Leslie Rinaldi; Michèle Cottier; Emilie Del Tedesco; Léa Clavel; Olivier Dumas; Camille Jarlot; Nadia Bouarioua; Xavier Roblin; Michel Peoc'h; Jean-Marc Phelip
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-03-07

8.  Carcinoembryonic antigen is the preferred biomarker for in vivo colorectal cancer targeting.

Authors:  J P Tiernan; S L Perry; E T Verghese; N P West; S Yeluri; D G Jayne; T A Hughes
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Expression and Prognostic Significance of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptors 1 and 3 in Gastric and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Charlotta Hedner; David Borg; Björn Nodin; Emelie Karnevi; Karin Jirström; Jakob Eberhard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.