Poonam Vohra1, Benjamin Buelow1, Yunn-Yi Chen1, Maria Serrano2, Manjiv Singh Vohra3, Anna Berry4, Britt-Marie Ljung1. 1. Department of Pathology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Pathology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, San Francisco. 3. ECC, Burlingame, California. 4. Cell Netix Pathology and Laboratories, Swedish Cancer Institute.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Molecular analysis represents an increasingly important component of the pathologic examination of tumor specimens. Notably, the characterization of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression in breast cancer specimens provides critical prognostic and predictive information. The objective of the current study was to compare the concordance of these markers as determined on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cell blocks compared with tissue blocks prepared from surgical specimens. METHODS: A total of 134 cases of breast carcinoma were identified from 2002 through 2014 with both FNA cell blocks (fixed in 10% formalin) and corresponding available tissue blocks and ER, PR, and HER2 were characterized in both specimens. Negative and positive concordances were determined for ER and PR in cell blocks compared with tissue blocks, and for HER2 immunohistochemistry on cell blocks and tissue blocks versus the corresponding reference method, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). RESULTS: Concordance for ER expression evaluated on a cell block compared with the corresponding tissue block was 96.2%. Concordance for PR expression was 77.5%. Overall agreement of HER2 FISH testing between cell blocks and tissue blocks was 96.7%. For both cell blocks and tissue blocks, HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry demonstrated ≥98% positive and negative concordance with the FISH reference method. CONCLUSIONS: ER, PR, and HER2 determination on FNA-acquired cell block (fixed exclusively in 10% formalin) showed excellent agreement for ER and HER2 and moderate agreement for PR with the corresponding tissue block. These findings support the equivalency of ER and HER2 evaluation performed on FNA cell blocks compared with surgical tissue blocks. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:828-35.
BACKGROUND: Molecular analysis represents an increasingly important component of the pathologic examination of tumor specimens. Notably, the characterization of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression in breast cancer specimens provides critical prognostic and predictive information. The objective of the current study was to compare the concordance of these markers as determined on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cell blocks compared with tissue blocks prepared from surgical specimens. METHODS: A total of 134 cases of breast carcinoma were identified from 2002 through 2014 with both FNA cell blocks (fixed in 10% formalin) and corresponding available tissue blocks and ER, PR, and HER2 were characterized in both specimens. Negative and positive concordances were determined for ER and PR in cell blocks compared with tissue blocks, and for HER2 immunohistochemistry on cell blocks and tissue blocks versus the corresponding reference method, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). RESULTS: Concordance for ER expression evaluated on a cell block compared with the corresponding tissue block was 96.2%. Concordance for PR expression was 77.5%. Overall agreement of HER2 FISH testing between cell blocks and tissue blocks was 96.7%. For both cell blocks and tissue blocks, HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry demonstrated ≥98% positive and negative concordance with the FISH reference method. CONCLUSIONS:ER, PR, and HER2 determination on FNA-acquired cell block (fixed exclusively in 10% formalin) showed excellent agreement for ER and HER2 and moderate agreement for PR with the corresponding tissue block. These findings support the equivalency of ER and HER2 evaluation performed on FNA cell blocks compared with surgical tissue blocks. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:828-35.
Authors: Gábor Cserni; Monika Francz; Balázs Járay; Endre Kálmán; Ilona Kovács; Tibor Krenács; Erika Tóth; Nóra Udvarhelyi; László Vass; András Vörös; Ana Krivokuca; Karol Kajo; Katarína Kajová Macháleková; Janina Kulka Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 2.874
Authors: Asteria H Kimambo; Edda A Vuhahula; Amos R Mwakigonja; Britt-Marie Ljung; Li Zhang; Katherine Van Loon; Dianna L Ng Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 5.686
Authors: Daniel Y Joh; Jacob T Heggestad; Shengwei Zhang; Gray R Anderson; Jayanta Bhattacharyya; Suzanne E Wardell; Simone A Wall; Amy B Cheng; Faris Albarghouthi; Jason Liu; Sachi Oshima; Angus M Hucknall; Terry Hyslop; Allison H S Hall; Kris C Wood; E Shelley Hwang; Kyle C Strickland; Qingshan Wei; Ashutosh Chilkoti Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2021-07-02