3.9 Article

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) as primary methodology for the assessment of HER2 status in adenocarcinoma of the breast - A single institution experience

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 207-210

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PDM.0b013e318064c72a

Keywords

fluorescence in-situ hybridization; HER2; HER2/ neu; herceptin; trastuzumab

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The demand for both reflexed and primary fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) testing in the clinical setting is increasing. Relevant literature has reported the incidence of HER2 overexpression in 20% to 30% of cases, but some reports suggest that HER2 gene amplification rates are substantially lower. Published data, however, on primary FISH assessment from a single institution is limited, especially information about the frequency of the anomalous genotypes defined by FISH. We report our experience with primary FISH testing in 742 consecutive cases of breast cancer, in the calendar year 2006. Eighty percent (595/742) of the, breast cancer cases were not amplified for HER2 (HER2/CEP]7 = 0.8-1.9), whereas 19% (142/742) of cases were HER2 amplified (HER2/CEP 17 >= 2.0). Among the HER2-amplified cases, 3% (19/742) were low-level amplified (HER2/CEP17 ratio = 2.0-2.5). Genotypic heterogeneity, defined as > 5% but < 50% of the tumor cells demonstrating HER2 gene amplification, was observed in 5% (40/7242) of the cases. HER2 monoallelic deletion (HER2/ CEP 1 7 <= 0. 7) was demonstrated in 2 % (12/742) of the cases and CEP17 monosomy (1 CEP17 signal in > 80% of tumor cells) was observed in 2% (13/742). Polysomy, if defined as CEP17 spot count 3.0 or more in at least 80% of tumor cells, was observed in 3% (20/742) of the cases. These data may be helpful as benchmarks for other institutions initiating primary FISH analysis for HER2 genotyping.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available