CONTEXT: There is critical need for standardization of HER2 immunohistochemistry testing in the clinical laboratory setting. Recently, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists have submitted guidelines recommending that laboratories achieve 95% concordance between assays and observers for HER2 testing. OBJECTIVE: As a potential aid to pathologists for achieving these new guidelines, we have conducted an examination using automated quantitative analysis (AQUA analysis) to provide a standardized HER2 immunohistochemistry expression score across instruments (sites), operators, and staining runs. DESIGN: We analyzed HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry in a cohort (n = 669) of invasive breast cancers in tissue microarray format across different instruments (n = 3), operators (n = 3), and staining runs (n = 3). Using light source, instrument calibration techniques, and a new generation of image analysis software, we produced normalized AQUA scores for each parameter and examined their reproducibility. RESULTS: The average percent coefficients of variation across instruments, operators, and staining runs were 1.8%, 2.0%, and 5.1%, respectively. For positive/negative classification between parameters, concordance rates ranged from 94.5% to 99.3% for all cases. Differentially classified cases only occurred around the determined cut point, not over the entire distribution. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that AQUA analysis can provide a standardized HER2 immunohistochemistry test that can meet current guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists. The use of AQUA analysis could allow for standardized and objective HER2 testing in clinical laboratories.
CONTEXT: There is critical need for standardization of HER2 immunohistochemistry testing in the clinical laboratory setting. Recently, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists have submitted guidelines recommending that laboratories achieve 95% concordance between assays and observers for HER2 testing. OBJECTIVE: As a potential aid to pathologists for achieving these new guidelines, we have conducted an examination using automated quantitative analysis (AQUA analysis) to provide a standardized HER2 immunohistochemistry expression score across instruments (sites), operators, and staining runs. DESIGN: We analyzed HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry in a cohort (n = 669) of invasive breast cancers in tissue microarray format across different instruments (n = 3), operators (n = 3), and staining runs (n = 3). Using light source, instrument calibration techniques, and a new generation of image analysis software, we produced normalized AQUA scores for each parameter and examined their reproducibility. RESULTS: The average percent coefficients of variation across instruments, operators, and staining runs were 1.8%, 2.0%, and 5.1%, respectively. For positive/negative classification between parameters, concordance rates ranged from 94.5% to 99.3% for all cases. Differentially classified cases only occurred around the determined cut point, not over the entire distribution. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that AQUA analysis can provide a standardized HER2 immunohistochemistry test that can meet current guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists. The use of AQUA analysis could allow for standardized and objective HER2 testing in clinical laboratories.
Authors: Jennifer Bordeaux; Allison Welsh; Seema Agarwal; Elizabeth Killiam; Maria Baquero; Jason Hanna; Valsamo Anagnostou; David Rimm Journal: Biotechniques Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 1.993
Authors: Antonio Gualberto; Marisa Dolled-Filhart; Mark Gustavson; Jason Christiansen; Yu-Fen Wang; Mary L Hixon; Jennifer Reynolds; Sandra McDonald; Agnes Ang; David L Rimm; Corey J Langer; Johnetta Blakely; Linda Garland; Luis G Paz-Ares; Daniel D Karp; Adrian V Lee Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Allison W Welsh; Christopher B Moeder; Sudha Kumar; Peter Gershkovich; Elaine T Alarid; Malini Harigopal; Bruce G Haffty; David L Rimm Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gerold Bepler; Ken André Olaussen; Anne-Lise Vataire; Jean-Charles Soria; Zhong Zheng; Ariane Dunant; Jean-Pierre Pignon; Michael J Schell; Pierre Fouret; Robert Pirker; Martin Filipits; Elisabeth Brambilla Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Kristian Jensen; Rikke Krusenstjerna-Hafstrøm; Jesper Lohse; Kenneth H Petersen; Helene Derand Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Celine Mascaux; Murry W Wynes; Yasufumi Kato; Cindy Tran; Bernadette Reyna Asuncion; Jason M Zhao; Mark Gustavson; Jim Ranger-Moore; Fabien Gaire; Jun Matsubayashi; Toshitaka Nagao; Koichi Yoshida; Tatuso Ohira; Norihiko Ikeda; Fred R Hirsch Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Marilyn M Bui; Michael W Riben; Kimberly H Allison; Elizabeth Chlipala; Carol Colasacco; Andrea G Kahn; Christina Lacchetti; Anant Madabhushi; Liron Pantanowitz; Mohamed E Salama; Rachel L Stewart; Nicole E Thomas; John E Tomaszewski; M Elizabeth Hammond Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Arnab Chakravarti; Meihua Wang; H Ian Robins; Tim Lautenschlaeger; Walter J Curran; David G Brachman; Christopher J Schultz; Ali Choucair; Marisa Dolled-Filhart; Jason Christiansen; Mark Gustavson; Annette Molinaro; Paul Mischel; Adam P Dicker; Markus Bredel; Minesh Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 7.038