Literature DB >> 27900490

Discordance between original and central laboratories in ER and HER2 results in a diverse, population-based sample.

Jennifer J Griggs1, Ann S Hamilton2, Kendra L Schwartz3, Weiqiang Zhao4, Paul H Abrahamse5, Dafydd G Thomas5, Julie M Jorns5, Rachel Jewell4, Maria E Sibug Saber2, Reina Haque6, Steven J Katz5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the discordance between original and central laboratories in estrogen receptor (ER) status, in tumors originally deemed to be ER-negative, and in HER2 status in a diverse population-based sample.
METHODS: In a follow-up study of 1785 women with Stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2007 in the Detroit and Los Angeles County SEER registry catchment areas, participants were asked to consent to reassessment of ER (in tumors originally deemed to be ER-negative) and HER2 status on archival tumor samples approximately four years after diagnosis. Blocks were centrally prepared and analyzed for ER and HER2 using standardized methods and the guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists. Analyses determined the discordance between original and central laboratories.
RESULTS: 132 (31%) of those eligible for ER reassessment and 367 (21%) eligible for HER2 reassessment had archival blocks reassessed centrally. ER discordance was only 6%. HER2 discordance by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was 26%, but final HER2 results-employing FISH in tumors that were IHC 2+ at the central laboratory-were discordant in only 6%. Half of the original laboratories did not perform their own assays.
CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between original and central laboratories in two large metropolitan areas was low in this population-based sample compared to previously reported patient samples. Centralization of testing for key pathology variables appears to be occurring in many hospitals. In addition, quality improvement efforts may have preceded the publication and dissemination of specialty society guidelines.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Estrogen receptor; HER2; Pathology; SEER registry

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27900490      PMCID: PMC5902386          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-4061-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  34 in total

1.  Accuracy and Reproducibility of HER2 Status in Breast Cancer Using Immunohistochemistry: A Quality Control Study in Tuscany Evaluating the Impact of Updated 2013 ASCO/CAP Recommendations.

Authors:  S Bianchi; S Caini; M Paglierani; C Saieva; V Vezzosi; G Baroni; A Simoni; D Palli
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.201

2.  Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada.

Authors:  D Craig Allred
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2008-11-05

3.  Automated cellular imaging system III for assessing HER2 status in breast cancer specimens: development of a standardized scoring method that correlates with FISH.

Authors:  Douglas M Minot; Benjamin R Kipp; Renee M Root; Reid G Meyer; Carol A Reynolds; Aziza Nassar; Michael R Henry; Amy C Clayton
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Optimizing HER2 assessment in breast cancer: application of automated image analysis.

Authors:  Henrik Holten-Rossing; Maj-Lis Møller Talman; Martin Kristensson; Ben Vainer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Adjuvant endocrine therapy initiation and persistence in a diverse sample of patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Christopher R Friese; T May Pini; Yun Li; Paul H Abrahamse; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Reshma Jagsi; Nancy K Janz; Sarah T Hawley; Steven J Katz; Jennifer J Griggs
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-03-31       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  J M Harvey; G M Clark; C K Osborne; D C Allred
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor heterogeneity in breast cancer.

Authors:  Gina G Chung; Maciej P Zerkowski; Sriparna Ghosh; Robert L Camp; David L Rimm
Journal:  Lab Invest       Date:  2007-03-05       Impact factor: 5.662

8.  HER-2/neu in breast cancer: interobserver variability and performance of immunohistochemistry with 4 antibodies compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization.

Authors:  T A Thomson; M M Hayes; J J Spinelli; E Hilland; C Sawrenko; D Phillips; B Dupuis; R L Parker
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 7.842

9.  Evaluation of new monoclonal antibodies in detection of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Her2 protein expression in breast carcinoma cell block sections using conventional microscopy and quantitative image analysis.

Authors:  K Z Hanley; M T Siddiqui; D Lawson; C Cohen; A Nassar
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.582

10.  Factors associated with receipt of breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy in a diverse population-based sample.

Authors:  Jennifer J Griggs; Sarah T Hawley; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Reshma Jagsi; Nancy K Janz; Mahasin S Mujahid; Christopher R Friese; Barbara Salem; Paul H Abrahamse; Steven J Katz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  6 in total

1.  A Root Cause Analysis Into the High Error Rate in Clinical Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Steven A Bogen
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2019-02-22

2.  Breast Cancer Outcomes in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Cohort of Insured Women.

Authors:  Reina Haque; Xiaoqing Xu; Jiaxiao Shi; Marilyn L Kwan; Rowan T Chlebowski
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 1.847

3.  Oncologists' influence on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy: does it matter whom you see for treatment of curable breast cancer?

Authors:  Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley; Irina Bondarenko; Reshma Jagsi; Kevin C Ward; Timothy P Hofer; Allison W Kurian
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-07-08       Impact factor: 4.624

Review 4.  Rate of reclassification of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases to HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines and response of HER2-equivocal cases to anti-HER2 therapy.

Authors:  James Crespo; Hongxia Sun; Jimin Wu; Qing-Qing Ding; Guilin Tang; Melissa K Robinson; Hui Chen; Aysegul A Sahin; Bora Lim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The initial hormone receptor/HER2 subtype is the main determinator of subtype discordance in advanced breast cancer: a study of the SONABRE registry.

Authors:  Marissa Meegdes; Khava I E Ibragimova; Dorien J A Lobbezoo; Ingeborg J H Vriens; Loes F S Kooreman; Frans L G Erdkamp; M Wouter Dercksen; Birgit E P J Vriens; Kirsten N A Aaldering; Manon J A E Pepels; Linda M H van de Winkel; Jolien Tol; Joan B Heijns; Agnes J van de Wouw; Natascha A J B Peters; Ananda Hochstenbach-Waelen; Marjolein L Smidt; Sandra M E Geurts; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 6.  "Interchangeability" of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Emina Torlakovic; Hyun J Lim; Julien Adam; Penny Barnes; Gilbert Bigras; Anthony W H Chan; Carol C Cheung; Jin-Haeng Chung; Christian Couture; Pierre O Fiset; Daichi Fujimoto; Gang Han; Fred R Hirsch; Marius Ilie; Diana Ionescu; Chao Li; Enrico Munari; Katsuhiro Okuda; Marianne J Ratcliffe; David L Rimm; Catherine Ross; Rasmus Røge; Andreas H Scheel; Ross A Soo; Paul E Swanson; Maria Tretiakova; Ka F To; Gilad W Vainer; Hangjun Wang; Zhaolin Xu; Dirk Zielinski; Ming-Sound Tsao
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 7.842

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.