4.5 Article

HER2 in Resected Gastric Cancer: Is there Prognostic Value?

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 109, 期 2, 页码 61-66

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23456

关键词

human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HER2; gastric adenocarcinoma; gastric cancer; biomarker

资金

  1. Katz Foundation Grant
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1TR000454]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and ObjectivesThe role of HER2 in patients with early stage/resected gastric cancer is controversial. This study investigates the prevalence and prognostic value of HER2 in patients undergoing curative intent resection for gastric adenocarcinoma. MethodsHER2 status was evaluated in 111 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma treated surgically between 1/00 and 6/11 with tissue available for analysis. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for HER2 was graded by two blinded pathologists. IHC was scored as 0+/1+: negative, 2+: equivocal, and 3+: positive. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for HER2 was performed on equivocal (2+) samples, and in cases of pathologist disagreement. ResultsHER2 expression as measured by IHC was negative in 61 (55%), equivocal in 37 (33.3%), and positive in 13 (11.7%) cases. FISH was positive in 8 of 37 samples tested, for a total of 21 HER2-positive cases (18.9%, 95% CI 11.6-26.2%). Patients with HER2-positive tumors were less likely to have signet ring cell features (23.8% vs. 53.9%, P=0.008). HER2 status was not associated with tumor size, location, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, margin status, nodal metastasis, or stage (P>0.05). HER2 status was not associated with OS (P=0.385). ConclusionsHER2 amplification/over-expression is present in patients with resected gastric adenocarcinoma, but is not associated with the presence of adverse prognostic factors. Our results suggest HER2 is not prognostic for patients with resected gastric adenocarcinoma. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014 109:61-66. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据