Literature DB >> 21990395

High false-negative rate of HER2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of the Oncotype DX test: an independent quality assurance study.

David J Dabbs1, Molly E Klein, Syed K Mohsin, Raymond R Tubbs, Yongli Shuai, Rohit Bhargava.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: HER2 (ERBB2) status is an important prognostic and predictive marker in breast carcinoma. In recent years, Genomic Health (GHI), purveyors of the Oncotype DX test, has been separately reporting HER2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to oncologists. Because of the lack of independent evaluation, this quality assurance study was undertaken to define the concordance rate between immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and GHI RT-PCR HER2 assay.
METHODS: All patients at three participating laboratories (Magee-Womens Hospital [Pittsburgh, PA], Cleveland Clinic [Cleveland, OH], and Riverside Methodist Hospital [Columbus, OH]) with available HER2 RT-PCR results from GHI were included in this study. All IHC-positive and equivocal patient cases were further evaluated and classified by FISH at respective laboratories.
RESULTS: Of the total 843 patient cases, 784 (93%) were classified as negative, 36 (4%) as positive, and 23 (3%) as equivocal at the three institutions using IHC/FISH. Of the 784 negative patient cases, 779 (99%) were also classified as negative by GHI RT-PCR assay. However, all 23 equivocal patient cases were reported as negative by GHI. Of the 36 positive cases, only 10 (28%; 95% CI, 14% to 45%) were reported as positive, 12 (33%) as equivocal, and 14 (39%) as negative.
CONCLUSION: There was an unacceptable false-negative rate for HER2 status with GHI HER2 assay in this independent study. This could create confusion in the decision-making process for targeted treatment and potentially lead to mismanagement of patients with breast cancer if only GHI HER2 information is used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21990395     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.7963

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  52 in total

1.  Breast cancer: Should we assess HER2 status by Oncotype DX?

Authors:  Michail Ignatiadis; Christos Sotiriou
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Use of modified Magee equations and histologic criteria to predict the Oncotype DX recurrence score.

Authors:  Bradley M Turner; Kristin A Skinner; Ping Tang; Mary C Jackson; Nyrie Soukiazian; Michelle Shayne; Alissa Huston; Marilyn Ling; David G Hicks
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  Algorithms for prediction of the Oncotype DX recurrence score using clinicopathologic data: a review and comparison using an independent dataset.

Authors:  Michael R Harowicz; Timothy J Robinson; Michaela A Dinan; Ashirbani Saha; Jeffrey R Marks; P Kelly Marcom; Maciej A Mazurowski
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  Perspectives on systems biology applications in diabetic kidney disease.

Authors:  Claudiu V Komorowsky; Frank C Brosius; Subramaniam Pennathur; Matthias Kretzler
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 4.132

5.  Impact of the 2013 ASCO/CAP HER2 revised guidelines on HER2 results in breast core biopsies with invasive breast carcinoma: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Wynton B Overcast; Jianying Zhang; Debra L Zynger; Gary H Tozbikian
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 6.  Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive breast cancer: does estrogen receptor status define two distinct subtypes?

Authors:  I Vaz-Luis; E P Winer; N U Lin
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Will oncotype DX DCIS testing guide therapy? A single-institution correlation of oncotype DX DCIS results with histopathologic findings and clinical management decisions.

Authors:  Chieh-Yu Lin; Kelly Mooney; Winward Choy; Soo-Ryum Yang; Keegan Barry-Holson; Kathleen Horst; Irene Wapnir; Kimberly Allison
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 8.  Progress and potential: training in genomic pathology.

Authors:  Richard L Haspel; Randall J Olsen; Anna Berry; Charles E Hill; John D Pfeifer; Iris Schrijver; Karen L Kaul
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.534

Review 9.  Diagnostic tests based on gene expression profile in breast cancer: from background to clinical use.

Authors:  Laura Zanotti; Alberto Bottini; Camillo Rossi; Daniele Generali; Maria Rosa Cappelletti
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-07-23

Review 10.  [Translational research and diagnostics for breast cancer].

Authors:  H H Kreipe
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.011

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.