AIM: To compare HER-2 scoring reproducibility by subjective and digital image analysis (DIA) scores with each other and with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assessed HER-2 amplification. METHODS: Herceptest-stained Tissue Micro Arrays of 219 breast carcinomas were scored (DAKO protocol) by 3 observers (both independent and as consensus), scored by DIA and both scores were compared with FISH amplification results. RESULTS: Interobserver subjective scores reproducibility was good (kappa 0.82 to 0.86) but therapeutically important 3+/2+discrepancies occurred in 11% to 16% of all 3+ cases. Subjective scores and FISH results differed considerably. Consensus scores by 3 pathologists correlated better with FISH, reducing the number of both Immunohistochemical (IHC) negative/FISH positives and IHC 3+/FISH negatives. DIA scores were well reproducible and correlated better with FISH amplification than did subjective scores. CONCLUSIONS: DIA scores were comparable with consensus scores between 3 expert pathologists, were very well reproducible and performed better in classifying IHC 3+/FISH+ cases than did subjective scores.
AIM: To compare HER-2 scoring reproducibility by subjective and digital image analysis (DIA) scores with each other and with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assessed HER-2 amplification. METHODS: Herceptest-stained Tissue Micro Arrays of 219 breast carcinomas were scored (DAKO protocol) by 3 observers (both independent and as consensus), scored by DIA and both scores were compared with FISH amplification results. RESULTS: Interobserver subjective scores reproducibility was good (kappa 0.82 to 0.86) but therapeutically important 3+/2+discrepancies occurred in 11% to 16% of all 3+ cases. Subjective scores and FISH results differed considerably. Consensus scores by 3 pathologists correlated better with FISH, reducing the number of both Immunohistochemical (IHC) negative/FISH positives and IHC 3+/FISH negatives. DIA scores were well reproducible and correlated better with FISH amplification than did subjective scores. CONCLUSIONS: DIA scores were comparable with consensus scores between 3 expert pathologists, were very well reproducible and performed better in classifying IHC 3+/FISH+ cases than did subjective scores.
Authors: Anthony E Rizzardi; Arthur T Johnson; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Stefan E Pambuccian; Jonathan Henriksen; Amy Pn Skubitz; Gregory J Metzger; Stephen C Schmechel Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; David G Hicks; Mitch Dowsett; Lisa M McShane; Kimberly H Allison; Donald C Allred; John M S Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Patrick Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B Jenkins; Pamela B Mangu; Soonmyung Paik; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Patricia A Spears; Gail H Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 5.534