INTRODUCTION: The tissue microarray (TMA) technique comprises the potential of significantly reducing time and tissue spent on slicing and performing immunohistochemical (IHC) stainings of paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. Tissue heterogeneity is an argument against using TMAs, which has been dealt with by increasing the size and number of cores punched from each tumor. No consensus exists on the most optimal size, number, and position of TMA cores in the donor paraffin block and no information exist regarding agreement between TMA cores from two different paraffin blocks from the same tumor or between TMA cores and biochemical analyses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A central and a peripheral 1mm core and a whole section from each of 54 paraffin blocks from 27 breast cancers included in a one-institution cohort, and a single 1mm central TMA core, from each breast tumor from 1000 patients included in the DBCG82 b&c trials, were IHC stained for ER, PgR and HER2. In addition, ER and PgR were measured in the DBCG82 b&c trials by a biochemical analysis. Statistical analyses included Kappa statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, Log-rank tests, and Cox regression hazards analyses. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: IHC stainings for ER, PgR, and HER2 showed a substantial agreement between a single 1mm TMA core and the corresponding whole section, between central and peripheral cores, and between cores from two different paraffin blocks from the same tumor. In addition, a fine agreement was found for ER and PgR between IHC stainings of TMA cores and biochemical analyses. Divergence between IHC and biochemical analyses was predominantly due to the chosen thresholds. IHC staining of one 1mm core from each tumor revealed a significant independent prognostic value of PgR and HER2 on overall survival. In conclusion, IHC stainings for ER, PgR, and HER2 of just a single 1mm TMA core seems to be sufficient, as no significant heterogeneity was noticed.
INTRODUCTION: The tissue microarray (TMA) technique comprises the potential of significantly reducing time and tissue spent on slicing and performing immunohistochemical (IHC) stainings of paraffin-embedded tumor tissue. Tissue heterogeneity is an argument against using TMAs, which has been dealt with by increasing the size and number of cores punched from each tumor. No consensus exists on the most optimal size, number, and position of TMA cores in the donorparaffin block and no information exist regarding agreement between TMA cores from two different paraffin blocks from the same tumor or between TMA cores and biochemical analyses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A central and a peripheral 1mm core and a whole section from each of 54 paraffin blocks from 27 breast cancers included in a one-institution cohort, and a single 1mm central TMA core, from each breast tumor from 1000 patients included in the DBCG82 b&c trials, were IHC stained for ER, PgR and HER2. In addition, ER and PgR were measured in the DBCG82 b&c trials by a biochemical analysis. Statistical analyses included Kappa statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, Log-rank tests, and Cox regression hazards analyses. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: IHC stainings for ER, PgR, and HER2 showed a substantial agreement between a single 1mm TMA core and the corresponding whole section, between central and peripheral cores, and between cores from two different paraffin blocks from the same tumor. In addition, a fine agreement was found for ER and PgR between IHC stainings of TMA cores and biochemical analyses. Divergence between IHC and biochemical analyses was predominantly due to the chosen thresholds. IHC staining of one 1mm core from each tumor revealed a significant independent prognostic value of PgR and HER2 on overall survival. In conclusion, IHC stainings for ER, PgR, and HER2 of just a single 1mm TMA core seems to be sufficient, as no significant heterogeneity was noticed.
Authors: Yuting Liu; Jon Zugazagoitia; Fahad Shabbir Ahmed; Brian S Henick; Scott N Gettinger; Roy S Herbst; Kurt A Schalper; David L Rimm Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Alison Y Zhang; Karen Chiam; Ygal Haupt; Stephen Fox; Simone Birch; Wayne Tilley; Lisa M Butler; Karen Knudsen; Clay Comstock; Krishan Rasiah; Judith Grogan; Kate L Mahon; Tina Bianco-Miotto; Carmela Ricciardelli; Maret Böhm; Susan Henshall; Warick Delprado; Phillip Stricker; Lisa G Horvath; James G Kench Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: K Wang; Y Chen; S Liu; S Qiu; S Gao; X Huang; J Zhang; X Peng; W Qiani; J Y Zhang Journal: Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol Date: 2009 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 3.219
Authors: Kate M Peters; Stacey L Edwards; Shalima S Nair; Juliet D French; Peter J Bailey; Kathryn Salkield; Sandra Stein; Sarah Wagner; Glenn D Francis; Susan J Clark; Melissa A Brown Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Shalaka Joshi; Johnathan Watkins; Patrycja Gazinska; John P Brown; Cheryl E Gillett; Anita Grigoriadis; Sarah E Pinder Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Marianne Kyndi; Flemming B Sørensen; Helle Knudsen; Jan Alsner; Marie Overgaard; Hanne M Nielsen; Jens Overgaard Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: M K Nygren; C Tekle; V A Ingebrigtsen; R Mäkelä; M Krohn; M R Aure; C E Nunes-Xavier; M Perälä; T Tramm; J Alsner; J Overgaard; J M Nesland; E Borgen; A-L Børresen-Dale; Ø Fodstad; K K Sahlberg; S-K Leivonen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Martin C Boonstra; Floris P R Verbeek; Andrew P Mazar; Hendrica A J M Prevoo; Peter J K Kuppen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Cornelis F M Sier Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 4.430