| Literature DB >> 19309522 |
Fabíola E Rosa1, Sara M Silveira, Cássia G T Silveira, Nádia A Bérgamo, Francisco A Moraes Neto, Maria A C Domingues, Fernando A Soares, José R F Caldeira, Silvia R Rogatto.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HER-2 gene testing has become an integral part of breast cancer patient diagnosis. The most commonly used assay in the clinical setting for evaluating HER-2 status is immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). These procedures permit correlation between HER-2 expression and morphological features. However, FISH signals are labile and fade over time, making post-revision of the tumor difficult. CISH (chromogenic in situ hybridization) is an alternative procedure, with certain advantages, although still limited as a diagnostic tool in breast carcinomas.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19309522 PMCID: PMC2667535 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-90
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Comparison of clinicopathological features with HER-2 status using CISH, qRT-PCR (qPCR), and IHC.
| Variables (n)a | CISH | qPCR | IHC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ | >10 | ≤ 2.00 | >2.00 | 0/1+ | 2/3+ | ||||
| ≤ 50 (28) | 9 | 5 | 0.9541 | 15 | 13 | 0.2569 | 17 | 11 | 0.3651 |
| >50 (48) | 15 | 8 | 32 | 16 | 34 | 14 | |||
| <4 (57) | 21 | 9 | 0.1756 | 38 | 19 | 0.0915 | 40 | 17 | 0.4723 |
| ≥ 4 (32) | 3 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 7 | |||
| ND (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 0 – 2 (19) | 5 | 5 | 0.1883 | 10 | 9 | 0.2953 | 11 | 8 | 0.2745 |
| >2 (56) | 19 | 7 | 37 | 19 | 40 | 16 | |||
| ND (1) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| I/IIA/IIB (65) | 21 | 9 | 0.1756 | 41 | 24 | 0.5901 | 44 | 21 | 0.7912 |
| IIIA/IIIB (11) | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 4 | |||
| I/II (36) | 10 | 6 | 1.000 | 22 | 14 | 0.9237 | 23 | 13 | 0.6767 |
| III (35) | 10 | 6 | 21 | 14 | 24 | 11 | |||
| ND (5) | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | |||
| Low (≤ 25%) (32) | 11 | 6 | 0.5133 | 19 | 13 | 0.5354 | 21 | 11 | 0.7209 |
| High (> 25%) (31) | 8 | 7 | 16 | 15 | 19 | 12 | |||
| Not reactive (13) | 5 | 0 | 12 | 1 | 11 | 2 | |||
| Yes (15) | 4 | 3 | 0.6346 | 7 | 8 | 0.1769 | 10 | 5 | 0.9678 |
| No (61) | 20 | 10 | 40 | 21 | 41 | 20 | |||
a Number of the cases evaluated by qRT-PCR and IHC, while 37 cases were evaluated using CISH.
* Chi-Square test.
ND: not determined.
Figure 1Breast cancer cells showing immunohistochemistry and chromogen . (A-D) IHC: HER-2 protein expression scored as 0 (A), 1+ (B), 2+ (C), and 3+ (D); (E-H) CISH: HER-2 gene detected in nuclei with two signals (E), more than two signals (F), and high-level amplification (G-H).
Comparison between protein expression by IHC and gene amplification by CISH and FISH.
| CISH (n = 37) | FISH (n = 8) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IHC | No amplification (%) | High amplification (%) | No amplification (%) | Amplification (%) |
| 0 or 1+ | 22 (84.6) | 4 (15.4) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| 2+ | 2 (50.0) | 2 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (25.0) |
| 3+ | 0 (0.0) | 7 (100) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (75.0) |
| Total | 24 | 13 | 0 | 8 |
Transcript expression by qRT-PCR in relation to protein expression and gene amplification using IHC and CISH/FISH methodologies, respectively.
| qRT-PCR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | Ratio | Ratio | |||
| 0 or 1+ | 50 (66.7) | 0.93 (0.05–12.24) | <0.0001a | 40 (80.0) | 10 (20.0) |
| 2+ | 12 (17.3) | 2.46 (1.15–7.61) | 5 (41.7) | 7 (58.3) | |
| 3+ | 13 (16.0) | 7.55 (1.07–20.43) | 1 (7.7) | 12 (92.3) | |
| Total | 75 | ||||
| No amplification | 24 (64.9) | 0.75 (0.05–1.95) | <0.0001b | 24 (100) | 0 (0.0) |
| High amplification | 13 (35.1) | 4.69 (1.07–20.43) | 2 (15.4) | 11 (84.6) | |
| Total | 37 | ||||
| No amplification | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ND | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Amplification | 8 (100) | 7.93 (2.64–20.43) | 0 (0.0) | 8 (100) | |
| Total | 8 | ||||
* Mean HER-2/reference gene ratios; ND: not determined.
a Kruskal-Wallis test.
b Mann-Whitney test.
Figure 2Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER-2 gene status detected by chromogen . Nonamplified HER-2 gene (2–5 copies per nucleus), low-level amplification (6–10 copies or small clusters) and high-level amplification (>10 copies or large clusters) were observed in different areas from the same tumor. FISH results of the same cases are represented on the right side of the figure.
Figure 3(A) Association between transcript and protein (1+, 2+, and 3+) expression levels; (B) Correlation between transcript expression level and amplification (2–5 copies and >10 copies or large clusters); (C) CISH, IHC and qRT-PCR results in 37 samples of breast cancer. The samples are indicated in dark circles. The transcript expression values by qRT-PCR are indicated in a log scale. Bars indicate the median value. P values are shown.
Figure 4Comparison between . Bars indicate the median value. P value is shown.