PURPOSE: As HER2 status is a strong predictor of the response to trastuzumab, clinical guidelines recommend that all breast tumours are first evaluated for HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) followed by confirmatory testing for HER2 gene amplification using fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for 2+ cases. Alternatively, chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) offers a simpler, less expensive approach to detect HER2 amplification. METHODS: In this prospective, multi-centre study, based on the largest dataset for HER2 testing in Germany to date, we evaluated the concordance between FISH and CISH in 399 samples from adjuvant and metastatic breast cancer patients. Tumour specimens from routine diagnostic practice were analysed by IHC, FISH and CISH in four reference centres. RESULTS: FISH and CISH results were strongly concordant (κ = 0.83), with 95% of cases showing agreement. Despite variable IHC scoring across testing centres, complete consensus among the three methods was observed for 246 cases, representing 91% of all IHC positive (3+) or negative (0/1+) cases. Confirmatory testing of 132 IHC equivocal (2+) cases also yielded highly concordant results between FISH and CISH. CONCLUSIONS: These data validate CISH for the assessment of HER2 gene amplification in breast tumours and, confirm CISH as a valid alternative to FISH in HER2 testing.
PURPOSE: As HER2 status is a strong predictor of the response to trastuzumab, clinical guidelines recommend that all breast tumours are first evaluated for HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) followed by confirmatory testing for HER2 gene amplification using fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for 2+ cases. Alternatively, chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) offers a simpler, less expensive approach to detect HER2 amplification. METHODS: In this prospective, multi-centre study, based on the largest dataset for HER2 testing in Germany to date, we evaluated the concordance between FISH and CISH in 399 samples from adjuvant and metastatic breast cancerpatients. Tumour specimens from routine diagnostic practice were analysed by IHC, FISH and CISH in four reference centres. RESULTS: FISH and CISH results were strongly concordant (κ = 0.83), with 95% of cases showing agreement. Despite variable IHC scoring across testing centres, complete consensus among the three methods was observed for 246 cases, representing 91% of all IHC positive (3+) or negative (0/1+) cases. Confirmatory testing of 132 IHC equivocal (2+) cases also yielded highly concordant results between FISH and CISH. CONCLUSIONS: These data validate CISH for the assessment of HER2 gene amplification in breast tumours and, confirm CISH as a valid alternative to FISH in HER2 testing.
Authors: Charles L Vogel; Melody A Cobleigh; Debu Tripathy; John C Gutheil; Lyndsay N Harris; Louis Fehrenbacher; Dennis J Slamon; Maureen Murphy; William F Novotny; Michael Burchmore; Steven Shak; Stanford J Stewart; Michael Press Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Couturier; A Vincent-Salomon; A Nicolas; P Beuzeboc; E Mouret; B Zafrani; X Sastre-Garau Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: M J Ellis; A Coop; B Singh; L Mauriac; A Llombert-Cussac; F Jänicke; W R Miller; D B Evans; M Dugan; C Brady; E Quebe-Fehling; M Borgs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
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: M D Pegram; A Lipton; D F Hayes; B L Weber; J M Baselga; D Tripathy; D Baly; S A Baughman; T Twaddell; J A Glaspy; D J Slamon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Dowsett; J Bartlett; I O Ellis; J Salter; M Hills; E Mallon; A D Watters; T Cooke; C Paish; P M Wencyk; S E Pinder Journal: J Pathol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.996