| Literature DB >> 23691049 |
Shu-Qin Dai1, Xin An, Fang Wang, Qiong Shao, Yong-Chang Chen, Ya-Nan Kong, Cui Chen, Cong Li, Hui-Yan Luo, Ying Liang, Feng-Hua Wang, Rui-Hua Xu, Yu-Hong Li.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the association between serum human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER 2) extracellular domain (ECD) levels and tissue HER 2 status in metastatic gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HER 2 status was retrospectively analyzed in 219 advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) patients. Serum HER 2 ECD was measured by chemiluminescent assay and tissue HER 2 was assessed by fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23691049 PMCID: PMC3653938 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1HER 2 protein expression and gene amplification in gastric cancer tissue.
A–D show HER 2 protein expression detected by IHC (original magnification ×200). A, HER 2 IHC score of 0; B, 1+; C, 2+; D, 3+. E–H show HER 2 gene amplification evaluated by FISH (original magnification ×1000). E, no amplification; F, low level of amplification; G, moderate level of amplification; H, high level of amplification (HER 2 signal cluster).
Figure 2Serum HER 2 ECD levels stratified by different levels of tissue HER 2 amplification or expression.
The median HER 2 ECD level was significantly higher in patients with high levels of HER 2 amplification than in patients with low to moderate levels of amplification or no amplification (A). The median HER 2 ECD level was significantly higher in patients with HER 2 IHC 3+ than in patients with HER 0–2+ (B).
Figure 3ROC curve for selection of the best cut-off value of serum HER 2 ECD to predict tissue HER 2 status.
A cut-off of 16.35 ng/mL has a sensitivity of 51.4% and a specificity of 97.3% in discriminating HER 2-positive and HER 2-negative tumours.
Association between serum HER 2 ECD levels and tissue HER 2 status (with different cut-off points).
| HER 2 status | Sensitivity (%) | Specifity (%) | ||
| Positive | Negative | 95% CI | 95%CI | |
|
| 51.4(32.9–69.0) | 96.2(85.58–97.19) | ||
| (15 ng/mL) | ||||
| Elevated HER 2 ECD | 19 | 7 | ||
| Normal HER 2 ECD | 18 | 175 | ||
|
| <0.001 | |||
|
| 51.4(32.9–69.0) | 97.3(88.33–98.38) | ||
| (16.35 ng/mL) | ||||
| Elevated HER 2 ECD | 19 | 5 | ||
| Normal HER 2 ECD | 18 | 177 | ||
|
| <0.001 | |||
|
| 32.4(17.5–51.0) | 100(96.31–100) | ||
| (22 ng/mL) | ||||
| Elevated HER 2 ECD | 12 | 0 | ||
| Normal HER 2 ECD | 25 | 182 | ||
|
| <0.001 | |||
Relationships between serum HER2 ECD levels and clinicopathological variables.
| Variable | Elevated ECD | Normal ECD | P Value |
|
|
| ||
| Median age | 52±10(27–77) | 56±10(32–70) | 0.15 |
| Gender | 0.383 | ||
| Male | 17(12.5%) | 119 (87.5%) | |
| Female | 7 (91.6%) | 76 (8.4%) | |
| ECOG performance status | 0.792 | ||
| 0–1 | 20 (11.6%) | 152 (88.4%) | |
| ≥2 | 4(8.5%) | 43(91.5%) | |
| Primary tumour site | 0.052 | ||
| Stomach | 13(8.2%) | 145 (91.8%) | |
| Gastro-oesophageal junction | 11(18.0%) | 50 (82.0%) | |
| Type of gastric cancer | 0.003 | ||
| Intestinal | 22 (22.9%) | 74 (77.1%) | |
| Diffuse or Mixed | 2 (1.6%) | 121(98.4%) | |
| Number of metastasis | 0.012 | ||
| 1–2 | 24(12.3%) | 171 (87.7%) | |
| >2 | 8 (33.3%) | 16 (66.7%) | |
| Peritoneum metastasis | 0.05 | ||
| Yes | 7(6.4%) | 102(93.6%) | |
| No | 17(15.5%) | 93(84.5%) | |
| Liver metastasis | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 18 (31.0%) | 40 (69.0%) | |
| No | 6 (3.7%) | 155 (96.3%) | |
| Lung metastasis | 0.446 | ||
| Yes | 3(15.8%) | 16(84.2%) | |
| No | 21(10.5%) | 179(89.5%) | |
| Baseline LDH (U/L) | <0.001 | ||
| <245 | 13(7.4%) | 175(92.6%) | |
|
| 13(41.9%) | 18(58.1%) |
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier estimates for overall survival according to serum HER 2 ECD levels and tissue HER 2 status.
Serum HER 2 ECD levels showed no association with overall survival. Whereas positive tissue HER 2 status was significantly associated with worse overall survival.