Literature DB >> 27562496

Influence of decalcification procedures on immunohistochemistry and molecular pathology in breast cancer.

Willemijne A M E Schrijver1, Petra van der Groep1,2, Laurien Dc Hoefnagel1, Natalie D Ter Hoeve1, Ton Peeters1, Cathy B Moelans1, Paul J van Diest1.   

Abstract

Distant breast cancer metastases are nowadays routinely biopsied to reassess receptor status and to isolate DNA for sequencing of druggable targets. Bone metastases are the most frequent subgroup. Decalcification procedures may negatively affect antigenicity and DNA quality. We therefore evaluated the effect of several decalcification procedures on receptor status and DNA/RNA quality. In 23 prospectively collected breast tumors, we compared ERα, PR and HER2 status by immunohistochemistry in (non-decalcified) tissue routinely processed for diagnostic purposes and in parallel tissue decalcified in Christensen's buffer with and without microwave, EDTA and Formical-4. Furthermore, HER2 fluorescence in situ hybridization and DNA/RNA quantity and quality were assessed. We found that the percentage of ERα-positive cells were on average lower in EDTA (P=0.049) and Formical-4 (P=0.047) treated cases, compared with controls, and PR expression showed decreased antigenicity after Christensen's buffer treatment (P=0.041). Overall, a good concordance (weighted kappa) was seen for ERα, PR and HER2 immunohistochemistry when comparing the non-decalcified control tissues with the decalcified tissues. For two patients (9%), there was a potential influence on therapeutic decision making with regard to hormonal therapy or HER2-targeted therapy. HER2 fluorescence in situ hybridization interpretation was seriously hampered by Christensen's buffer and Formical-4, and DNA/RNA quantity and quality were decreased after all four decalcification procedures. Validation on paired primary breast tumor specimens and EDTA-treated bone metastases showed that immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization were well assessable and DNA and RNA yield and quality were sufficient. With this, we conclude that common decalcification procedures have only a modest negative influence on hormone and HER2 receptor immunohistochemistry in breast cancer. However, they may seriously affect DNA/RNA-based diagnostic procedures. Overall, EDTA-based decalcification is therefore to be preferred as it best allows fluorescence in situ hybridization and DNA/RNA isolation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27562496     DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  29 in total

1.  Effect of bone decalcification procedures on DNA in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. EDTA is highly preferable to a routinely used acid decalcifier.

Authors:  J C Alers; P J Krijtenburg; K J Vissers; H van Dekken
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.479

2.  Impact of decalcification on receptor status in breast cancer.

Authors:  Farbod Darvishian; Baljit Singh; Stephanie Krauter; Luis Chiriboga; Maryann D Gangi; Jonathan Melamed
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  CytoLyt® fixation and decalcification pretreatments alter antigenicity in normal tissues compared with standard formalin fixation.

Authors:  Jennette R Gruchy; Penny J Barnes; Kelly A Dakin Haché
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2015-04

4.  Testing for discordance at metastatic relapse of breast cancer matters.

Authors:  Paul J van Diest; Laurien D C Hoefnagel; Elsken van der Wall
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-07-16       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Influence of decalcifying agents on immunoreactivity of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue.

Authors:  J B Matthews; G I Mason
Journal:  Histochem J       Date:  1984-07

6.  Microwave-induced fast decalcification of rat bone for electron microscopic analysis: an ultrastructural and cytochemical study.

Authors:  Dimitrius Leonardo Pitol; Flavio Henrique Caetano; Laurelúcia Orive Lunardi
Journal:  Braz Dent J       Date:  2007

7.  Receptor conversion in distant breast cancer metastases.

Authors:  Laurien D C Hoefnagel; Marc J van de Vijver; Henk-Jan van Slooten; Pieter Wesseling; Jelle Wesseling; Pieter J Westenend; Joost Bart; Cornelis A Seldenrijk; Iris D Nagtegaal; Joost Oudejans; Paul van der Valk; Petra van der Groep; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Elsken van der Wall; Paul J van Diest
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Functional DNA quantification guides accurate next-generation sequencing mutation detection in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor biopsies.

Authors:  Sachin Sah; Liangjing Chen; Jeffrey Houghton; Jon Kemppainen; Adam C Marko; Robert Zeigler; Gary J Latham
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 11.117

9.  Effects of tissue decalcification on the quantification of breast cancer biomarkers by digital image analysis.

Authors:  Arkadiusz Gertych; Sonia Mohan; Shawn Maclary; Sambit Mohanty; Kolja Wawrowsky; James Mirocha; Bonnie Balzer; Beatrice S Knudsen
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 2.644

10.  Discordance between core needle biopsy (CNB) and excisional biopsy (EB) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status in early breast cancer (EBC).

Authors:  M Arnedos; A Nerurkar; P Osin; R A'Hern; I E Smith; M Dowsett
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 32.976

View more
  11 in total

1.  NKX3.1 and PSMA are sensitive diagnostic markers for prostatic carcinoma in bone metastasis after decalcification of specimens.

Authors:  Hongying Huang; Sergei R Guma; Jonathan Melamed; Ming Zhou; Peng Lee; Fang-Ming Deng
Journal:  Am J Clin Exp Urol       Date:  2018-10-20

2.  Impact of delayed fixation and decalcification on PD-L1 expression: a comparison of two clones.

Authors:  Fabien Forest; Gaelle Cote; David Laville; Vanessa Da Cruz; Pierre Dal Col; Florian Camy; Mousa Mobarki; Alix Clemenson; Violaine Yvorel; Michel Péoc'h
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Exome-capture RNA sequencing of decade-old breast cancers and matched decalcified bone metastases.

Authors:  Nolan Priedigkeit; Rebecca J Watters; Peter C Lucas; Ahmed Basudan; Rohit Bhargava; William Horne; Jay K Kolls; Zhou Fang; Margaret Q Rosenzweig; Adam M Brufsky; Kurt R Weiss; Steffi Oesterreich; Adrian V Lee
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2017-09-07

Review 4.  Coordinating an Oncology Precision Medicine Clinic Within an Integrated Health System: Lessons Learned in Year One.

Authors:  Michael A Thompson; Jennifer J Godden; Deborah Wham; Antony Ruggeri; Michael P Mullane; Amanda Wilson; Shamsuddin Virani; Scott M Weissman; Brenda Ramczyk; Pamela Vanderwall; James L Weese
Journal:  J Patient Cent Res Rev       Date:  2019-01-28

Review 5.  Canine and murine models of osteosarcoma.

Authors:  Jessica Beck; Ling Ren; Shan Huang; Erika Berger; Kathleen Bardales; Joshua Mannheimer; Christina Mazcko; Amy LeBlanc
Journal:  Vet Pathol       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 3.157

Review 6.  Practical considerations for optimising homologous recombination repair mutation testing in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  David Gonzalez; Joaquin Mateo; Albrecht Stenzinger; Federico Rojo; Michelle Shiller; Alexander W Wyatt; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Leonard G Gomella; Ros Eeles; Anders Bjartell
Journal:  J Pathol Clin Res       Date:  2021-02-25

7.  3rd ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3).

Authors:  F Cardoso; A Costa; E Senkus; M Aapro; F André; C H Barrios; J Bergh; G Bhattacharyya; L Biganzoli; M J Cardoso; L Carey; D Corneliussen-James; G Curigliano; V Dieras; N El Saghir; A Eniu; L Fallowfield; D Fenech; P Francis; K Gelmon; A Gennari; N Harbeck; C Hudis; B Kaufman; I Krop; M Mayer; H Meijer; S Mertz; S Ohno; O Pagani; E Papadopoulos; F Peccatori; F Penault-Llorca; M J Piccart; J Y Pierga; H Rugo; L Shockney; G Sledge; S Swain; C Thomssen; A Tutt; D Vorobiof; B Xu; L Norton; E Winer
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 32.976

8.  Evaluation of Decalcification Techniques for Rat Femurs Using HE and Immunohistochemical Staining.

Authors:  Haixia Liu; Ruyuan Zhu; Chenyue Liu; Rufeng Ma; Lili Wang; Beibei Chen; Lin Li; Jianzhao Niu; Dandan Zhao; Fangfang Mo; Min Fu; Dieter Brömme; Dongwei Zhang; Sihua Gao
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Modified application of Kawamoto's film method for super-resolution imaging of megakaryocytes in undecalcified bone marrow.

Authors:  Yosuke Morodomi; Sachiko Kanaji; Eric Won; Tadafumi Kawamoto; Taisuke Kanaji
Journal:  Res Pract Thromb Haemost       Date:  2019-11-02

Review 10.  PARP Inhibitors as Monotherapy in Daily Practice for Advanced Prostate Cancers.

Authors:  Diego Teyssonneau; Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin; Charles Dariane; Eric Barret; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Laurent Brureau; Gilles Créhange; Gaëlle Fiard; Gaëlle Fromont; Mathieu Gauthé; Alain Ruffion; Raphaële Renard-Penna; Romain Mathieu; Paul Sargos; Morgan Rouprêt; Guillaume Ploussard; Guilhem Roubaud
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.