BACKGROUND: Tissue microarrays (TMAs) are an attractive alternative to analysis of whole sections (WS). For breast carcinomas, the recent recommendations for cut-offs (i.e. Ki67, H-score) have necessitated the re-evaluation of TMAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS:TMA results of immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for Estrogen receptors (ER), Progesterone receptors (PgR), Ki67 and HER2 were compared against the results of WS for 88 breast carcinomas. RESULTS: We found excellent agreement between the two methods for ER and PgR IHC evaluation, using the H-score (Kappa coefficient 0.972 and 0.9, respectively). There was also excellent correlation for HER2 IHC (Kappa coefficient 1) and amplification (Kappa coefficient 0.933). Furthermore, scoring of Ki67 was highly-correlated between TMAs and WS (Kappa coefficient 0.954). The latter excellent correlation has not, to our knowledge, been previously reported. CONCLUSION: For breast cancer, TMAs are an efficient and reliable alternative to the use of WS, using the currently recommended markers, evaluation protocols and cut-off values.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Tissue microarrays (TMAs) are an attractive alternative to analysis of whole sections (WS). For breast carcinomas, the recent recommendations for cut-offs (i.e. Ki67, H-score) have necessitated the re-evaluation of TMAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS:TMA results of immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for Estrogen receptors (ER), Progesterone receptors (PgR), Ki67 and HER2 were compared against the results of WS for 88 breast carcinomas. RESULTS: We found excellent agreement between the two methods for ER and PgR IHC evaluation, using the H-score (Kappa coefficient 0.972 and 0.9, respectively). There was also excellent correlation for HER2 IHC (Kappa coefficient 1) and amplification (Kappa coefficient 0.933). Furthermore, scoring of Ki67 was highly-correlated between TMAs and WS (Kappa coefficient 0.954). The latter excellent correlation has not, to our knowledge, been previously reported. CONCLUSION: For breast cancer, TMAs are an efficient and reliable alternative to the use of WS, using the currently recommended markers, evaluation protocols and cut-off values.
Authors: Paulette Mhawech-Fauceglia; Li Yan; Maryam Sharifian; Xing Ren; Song Liu; Grace Kim; Simon A Gayther; Tanja Pejovic; Kate Lawrenson Journal: Cancer Microenviron Date: 2014-10-21
Authors: An Sen Tan; Joe Poe Sheng Yeong; Chi Peng Timothy Lai; Chong Hui Clara Ong; Bernett Lee; Jeffrey Chun Tatt Lim; Aye Aye Thike; Jabed Iqbal; Rebecca Alexandra Dent; Elaine Hsuen Lim; Puay Hoon Tan Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Gøril Knutsvik; Ingunn M Stefansson; Sura Aziz; Jarle Arnes; Johan Eide; Karin Collett; Lars A Akslen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: K Trumpi; B L Emmink; A M Prins; M G H van Oijen; P J van Diest; C J A Punt; M Koopman; O Kranenburg; I H M Borel Rinkes Journal: J Cancer Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Abir A Muftah; Mohammed A Aleskandarany; Methaq M Al-Kaabi; Sultan N Sonbul; Maria Diez-Rodriguez; Chris C Nolan; Carlos Caldas; Ian O Ellis; Emad A Rakha; Andrew R Green Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-05-06 Impact factor: 4.872