OBJECTIVE: To gain an understanding of current attitudes among oncologists and pathologists to prospective HER2 testing in breast cancer and to gauge whether a national consensus exists regarding extent and quality of testing. DESIGN: Qualitative study, with semi-quantitative components, using emailed questionnaires and open-ended discussion documents. PARTICIPANTS: 186 relevant specialists, including 76 breast oncologists and 99 pathologists, representing all but three of the UK cancer networks. RESULTS: A strong consensus was seen in favour of universal, non-selective testing for HER2 at the point of breast cancer diagnosis. Similarly, an overwhelming majority of participants agreed that, to optimise the quality of test results, all laboratories undertaking HER2 testing should be CPA-accredited, participate in the recognised national external quality assessment scheme (UK NEQAS), and carry out a formal annual audit of its testing service. A further recommendation that testing be restricted to laboratories undertaking a minimum 250 tests per annum for immunohistochemistry and 100 tests per annum for in situ hybridisation techniques met with majority support. However, this was not a clear consensus; a significant minority of participants favoured continued use of local services falling short of these criteria. CONCLUSION: This study was successful in gauging national specialist opinion regarding the extent and quality assurance of HER2 testing in the UK.
OBJECTIVE: To gain an understanding of current attitudes among oncologists and pathologists to prospective HER2 testing in breast cancer and to gauge whether a national consensus exists regarding extent and quality of testing. DESIGN: Qualitative study, with semi-quantitative components, using emailed questionnaires and open-ended discussion documents. PARTICIPANTS: 186 relevant specialists, including 76 breast oncologists and 99 pathologists, representing all but three of the UK cancer networks. RESULTS: A strong consensus was seen in favour of universal, non-selective testing for HER2 at the point of breast cancer diagnosis. Similarly, an overwhelming majority of participants agreed that, to optimise the quality of test results, all laboratories undertaking HER2 testing should be CPA-accredited, participate in the recognised national external quality assessment scheme (UK NEQAS), and carry out a formal annual audit of its testing service. A further recommendation that testing be restricted to laboratories undertaking a minimum 250 tests per annum for immunohistochemistry and 100 tests per annum for in situ hybridisation techniques met with majority support. However, this was not a clear consensus; a significant minority of participants favoured continued use of local services falling short of these criteria. CONCLUSION: This study was successful in gauging national specialist opinion regarding the extent and quality assurance of HER2 testing in the UK.
Authors: I O Ellis; J Bartlett; M Dowsett; S Humphreys; B Jasani; K Miller; S E Pinder; A Rhodes; R Walker Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Edith A Perez; Vera J Suman; Nancy E Davidson; Silvana Martino; Peter A Kaufman; Wilma L Lingle; Patrick J Flynn; James N Ingle; Daniel Visscher; Robert B Jenkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; John Bryant; Elizabeth Tan-Chiu; Edward Romond; William Hiller; Kyeongmee Park; Ann Brown; Greg Yothers; Steve Anderson; Roy Smith; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-06-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Martine J Piccart-Gebhart; Marion Procter; Brian Leyland-Jones; Aron Goldhirsch; Michael Untch; Ian Smith; Luca Gianni; Jose Baselga; Richard Bell; Christian Jackisch; David Cameron; Mitch Dowsett; Carlos H Barrios; Günther Steger; Chiun-Shen Huang; Michael Andersson; Moshe Inbar; Mikhail Lichinitser; István Láng; Ulrike Nitz; Hiroji Iwata; Christoph Thomssen; Caroline Lohrisch; Thomas M Suter; Josef Rüschoff; Tamás Suto; Victoria Greatorex; Carol Ward; Carolyn Straehle; Eleanor McFadden; M Stella Dolci; Richard D Gelber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward H Romond; Edith A Perez; John Bryant; Vera J Suman; Charles E Geyer; Nancy E Davidson; Elizabeth Tan-Chiu; Silvana Martino; Soonmyung Paik; Peter A Kaufman; Sandra M Swain; Thomas M Pisansky; Louis Fehrenbacher; Leila A Kutteh; Victor G Vogel; Daniel W Visscher; Greg Yothers; Robert B Jenkins; Ann M Brown; Shaker R Dakhil; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Wilma L Lingle; Pamela M Klein; James N Ingle; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Hiroaki Nitta; Brian D Kelly; Mary Padilla; Nikolaus Wick; Patrick Brunhoeber; Isaac Bai; Shalini Singh; Jim Ranger-Moore; Chris Bieniarz; Hitoshi Tsuda; Thomas M Grogan Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Robert C Leonard; Peter J Barrett-Lee; Margot A Gosney; Alexis M Willett; Malcolm W Reed; Pauline J Hammond Journal: Oncologist Date: 2010-06-15
Authors: Alan D McCrorie; Susannah Ashfield; Aislinn Begley; Colin Mcilmunn; Patrick J Morrison; Clinton Boyd; Bryony Eccles; Stephanie Greville-Heygate; Ellen R Copson; Ramsey I Cutress; Diana M Eccles; Kienan I Savage; Stuart A McIntosh Journal: J Pathol Clin Res Date: 2020-02-05
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