| Literature DB >> 24261710 |
Mitsugu Kochi, Masashi Fujii, Shinobu Masuda, Noriaki Kanamori, Yoshiaki Mihara, Tomoya Funada, Hidenori Tamegai, Megumu Watanabe, Hiroshi Suda, Tadatoshi Takayama1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate how differences in expression of HER2 between primary gastric cancers (PGCs) and their corresponding metastatic lymph nodes (LMNs) might affect its potential as a prognostic indicator in treatments including anti-HER2 agents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24261710 PMCID: PMC3937244 DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-8-191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagn Pathol ISSN: 1746-1596 Impact factor: 2.644
Patient demographics and tumor characteristics
| | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |
| Male | 82 (80.4) | | | |
| Female | 20 (19.6) | | | |
| | | | 0.348 | |
| Median [Range] | 68 [29-86] | 68 [29-84] | 72[29-86] | |
| 29-49 | 18 (17.6) | 16 (19.5) | 2 (10.0) | |
| 50-79 | 73 (71.6) | 59 (57.8) | 14 (70.0) | |
| 79-86 | 11 (10.8) | 7 (8.5) | 4 (20.0) | |
| | | | 0.868 | |
| Upper | 27 (26.5) | 22 (26.8) | 5 (33.3) | |
| Middle + Lower | 75 (73.5) | 60 (73.2) | 15 (66.6) | |
| | | | 0.454 | |
| Partial | 64 (62.7) | 50 (61.0) | 14 (70.0) | |
| Total | 38 (37.3) | 32 (39.0) | 6 (30.0) | |
| | | | 0.147 | |
| No residual tumors | 87 (85.3) | 72 (87.8) | 15 (75.0) | |
| Definite residual tumor | 15 (14.7) | 10 (12,2) | 5 (25.0) | |
| | | | 0.563 | |
| Stage I-III | 82 (80.4) | 65 (79.3) | 17 (85.0) | |
| Stage IV | 20 (19.6) | 17 (20.7) | 3 (15.0) | |
| | | | 0.936 | |
| Stage II-III | 86 (84.3) | 69 (84.2) | 17 (85.0) | |
| Stage IV | 16 (15.7) | 13 (15.8) | 3 (15.0) | |
| | | | | |
| Intestinal | 141 (100) | 82 (100) | 20 (100) | |
| Diffuse | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| | | | 0.013 | |
| Median [Range] | 4 [1-100] | 4 [1-100] | 2 [1-10] |
Comparison of HER2 status as assessed by IHC in 102 primary gastric carcinomas and their corresponding lymph node metastases
| | | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | ||||||||
| Negative | (0, 1+) | 62 | 60.8 | 6 | 5.8 | 2 | 2.0 | 70 | 68.6 |
| Equivocal | (2+) | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 2.0 | 3 | 2.9 | 7 | 9.6 |
| Positive | (3+) | 4 | 3.9 | 4 | 3.9 | 17 | 16.7 | 25 | 24.5 |
| Total | 68 | 66.6 | 12 | 11.8 | 22 | 21.6 | 102 | 100 | |
k = 0.629.
Comparison of HER2 status as assessed by IHC and FISH in 102 primary gastric carcinomas and their corresponding lymph node metastases
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||||
| Negative | 69 | 67.6 | 6 | 5.9 | 75 | 73.5 |
| Positive | 4 | 3.9 | 23 | 22.5 | 27 | 26.5 |
| Total | 73 | 71.6 | 29 | 28.4 | 102 | 100 |
k = 0.754.
Figure 1HER2 expression as detected by IHC and FISH in discordant cases where HER2 status was positive in the LNM but negative in the PGC. (A) FISH-positive LNM sample. (B) IHC-positive LNM sample. (C) FISH-negative PGC sample. (D) IHC-negative PGC sample.
Figure 2HER2 expression as detected by IHC and FISH in discordant cases, where HER2 status was positive in the PGC but negative in the LNM. (A) FISH-negative LNM sample. (B) IHC-negative LNM sample. (C) FISH-positive PGC sample. (D) IHC-positive PGC sample.