BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab has been recently proposed as a treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (GC). Since most patients have inoperable disease at diagnosis, accurate assessment of HER2 status on biopsy specimens is essential to select the patients who may benefit from therapy. AIM: The aim of this study is to establish whether HER2 status assessed on biopsy material could be reliable for treatment decisions using anti-HER2 agents. METHODS: The HER2 status was evaluated in 61 consecutive pairs of biopsy and surgical GCs samples by immunohistochemistry and chromogenic in situ hybridization. RESULTS: The overall concordance of HER2 status between biopsy and surgical specimens was 91.8 % with a predictive positive value of 71.4 % and a negative predictive value of 94.4 %. Of five discordant cases, there were three negative and two positive false biopsy results. All the false negative cases showed heterogeneous expression of HER2 protein in surgical samples. Two cases displayed overexpression of the receptors without corresponding gene amplification. CONCLUSIONS: HER2 status as evaluated on biopsy samples is a fairly good predictor of HER2 status of surgically-excised GCs. The most important influence for discordant results is tumor heterogeneity. However, HER2 overexpression, especially without coexisting gene amplification, may only be a temporary change in a tumor population. This may explain those cases with positive HER2 evaluation on biopsy material and a negative result on corresponding surgical specimen.
BACKGROUND:Trastuzumab has been recently proposed as a treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (GC). Since most patients have inoperable disease at diagnosis, accurate assessment of HER2 status on biopsy specimens is essential to select the patients who may benefit from therapy. AIM: The aim of this study is to establish whether HER2 status assessed on biopsy material could be reliable for treatment decisions using anti-HER2 agents. METHODS: The HER2 status was evaluated in 61 consecutive pairs of biopsy and surgical GCs samples by immunohistochemistry and chromogenic in situ hybridization. RESULTS: The overall concordance of HER2 status between biopsy and surgical specimens was 91.8 % with a predictive positive value of 71.4 % and a negative predictive value of 94.4 %. Of five discordant cases, there were three negative and two positive false biopsy results. All the false negative cases showed heterogeneous expression of HER2 protein in surgical samples. Two cases displayed overexpression of the receptors without corresponding gene amplification. CONCLUSIONS:HER2 status as evaluated on biopsy samples is a fairly good predictor of HER2 status of surgically-excised GCs. The most important influence for discordant results is tumor heterogeneity. However, HER2 overexpression, especially without coexisting gene amplification, may only be a temporary change in a tumor population. This may explain those cases with positive HER2 evaluation on biopsy material and a negative result on corresponding surgical specimen.
Authors: Noël Dybdal; Grazyna Leiberman; Steven Anderson; Bryan McCune; Alex Bajamonde; Robert L Cohen; Robert D Mass; Corsee Sanders; Michael F Press Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Michael F Press; Guido Sauter; Leslie Bernstein; Ivonne E Villalobos; Martina Mirlacher; Jian-Yuan Zhou; Rooba Wardeh; Yong-Tian Li; Roberta Guzman; Yanling Ma; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Angela Santiago; Jinha M Park; Alessandro Riva; Dennis J Slamon Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Gail H Vance; Todd S Barry; Kenneth J Bloom; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; David G Hicks; Robert B Jenkins; Diane L Persons; Raymond R Tubbs; M Elizabeth H Hammond Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Annette Lebeau; Andreas Turzynski; Susanne Braun; Wera Behrhof; Barbara Fleige; Wolfgang D Schmitt; Tobias J Grob; Lia Burkhardt; Dieter Hölzel; Christian Jackisch; Christoph Thomssen; Volkmar Müller; Michael Untch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Angela N Bartley; Mary Kay Washington; Christina B Ventura; Nofisat Ismaila; Carol Colasacco; Al B Benson; Alfredo Carrato; Margaret L Gulley; Dhanpat Jain; Sanjay Kakar; Helen J Mackay; Catherine Streutker; Laura Tang; Megan Troxell; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Yalai Bai; Huan Cheng; Jennifer Bordeaux; Veronique Neumeister; Sudha Kumar; David L Rimm; David F Stern Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 3.240