CONTEXT: The immunohistochemistry (IHC) laboratory represents a dynamic area of surgical pathology with limited practice guidelines. Studies have shown significant interlaboratory variability in results. OBJECTIVE: To establish baseline parameters for IHC validation procedures and practice, and to assess their feasibility of implementation. DESIGN: In September 2010, a questionnaire was distributed by the College of American Pathologists. It was composed of 32 questions relating to nonpredictive assays as well as non-US Food and Drug Administration (non-FDA)-approved, predictive IHC assays other than human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2/neu). RESULTS: For non-FDA approved, nonpredictive IHC assays, 68% of laboratories had a written validation procedure. Eighty-six percent of laboratories validated the most recently introduced nonpredictive antibody. Seventy-five percent used 21 or fewer total cases for the validation and 40% used weakly or focally positive cases. Forty-six percent of respondents had a written procedure for validation procedures for non-FDA approved, predictive marker IHC assays other than HER2/neu. Seventy-five percent of laboratories validated the most recently introduced predictive antibody other than HER2/neu. Fewer than half used 25 or more cases for the validation, and 47% used weakly or focally positive cases. CONCLUSION: Some laboratories have written validation procedures that appear to build upon HER2/neu testing guidelines. Some laboratories also manage to validate new antibodies according to those standards; however, many do not. There appears to be a need for further validation guideline development for nonpredictive and non-FDA approved predictive antibody IHC assays.
CONTEXT: The immunohistochemistry (IHC) laboratory represents a dynamic area of surgical pathology with limited practice guidelines. Studies have shown significant interlaboratory variability in results. OBJECTIVE: To establish baseline parameters for IHC validation procedures and practice, and to assess their feasibility of implementation. DESIGN: In September 2010, a questionnaire was distributed by the College of American Pathologists. It was composed of 32 questions relating to nonpredictive assays as well as non-US Food and Drug Administration (non-FDA)-approved, predictive IHC assays other than human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2/neu). RESULTS: For non-FDA approved, nonpredictive IHC assays, 68% of laboratories had a written validation procedure. Eighty-six percent of laboratories validated the most recently introduced nonpredictive antibody. Seventy-five percent used 21 or fewer total cases for the validation and 40% used weakly or focally positive cases. Forty-six percent of respondents had a written procedure for validation procedures for non-FDA approved, predictive marker IHC assays other than HER2/neu. Seventy-five percent of laboratories validated the most recently introduced predictive antibody other than HER2/neu. Fewer than half used 25 or more cases for the validation, and 47% used weakly or focally positive cases. CONCLUSION: Some laboratories have written validation procedures that appear to build upon HER2/neu testing guidelines. Some laboratories also manage to validate new antibodies according to those standards; however, many do not. There appears to be a need for further validation guideline development for nonpredictive and non-FDA approved predictive antibody IHC assays.
Authors: Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Jeffrey D Goldsmith; Rhona J Souers; Lisa A Fatheree; Keith E Volmar; Lauren N Stuart; Jan A Nowak; J Rex Astles; Raouf E Nakhleh Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Julian C Schink; Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Kalliopi P Siziopikou; Gregory J Tsongalis; Alfred W Rademaker; Jyoti D Patel; Al B Benson; Edith A Perez; William J Gradishar Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Robert L Lott; Peter V Riccelli; Elizabeth A Sheppard; Keith A Wharton; Eric E Walk; George Kennedy; Bryce Portier Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2021 May-Jun 01
Authors: Mark Laible; Kornelia Schlombs; Katharina Kaiser; Elke Veltrup; Stefanie Herlein; Sotiris Lakis; Robert Stöhr; Sebastian Eidt; Arndt Hartmann; Ralph M Wirtz; Ugur Sahin Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 4.430