4.3 Article

What Causes Discrepancies in HER2 Testing for Breast Cancer? A Japanese Ring Study in Conjunction With the Global Standard

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 130, 期 6, 页码 883-891

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP5UUMFMA5ZKII

关键词

Breast cancer; HER2 testing; Assessment; Ring study; Multicenter study; Immunohistochemistry; Fluorescence in situ hybridization

资金

  1. Chugai Pharmaceutical, Chuo, Japan
  2. DakoCytomation, Bunkyo, Japan
  3. Abbott Japan, Minato
  4. SRL, Tachikawa, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed interinstitutional and interobserver consistency of human epidermal growth factor receptor type-2 (HER2) testing using immunohistochemical analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in a set of 20 breast cancer samples among 10 institutions in Japan and a Herceptin adjuvant study participating laboratory in Germany and identified factors that may lead to discordant results. We found a good agreement in immunohistochemical HER2 scoring between the coordinating institution and 10 participating laboratories (kappa = 0.718) and excellent agreement for FISH (kappa = 0.900). The results of a comparison between 10 Japanese laboratories and the German laboratory was good for immunohistochemical studies (kappa = 0.713) and excellent for FISH (kappa = 0.887). FISH retesting of equivocal samples (2+ immunohistochemically) improved agreement. Discrepancies between results were attributed to the evaluation process in 33.0% of the samples, staining procedures in 25.0%, and a combination of the two in 41.7%. Evaluation of samples according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline increased the number of 2+ immunohistochemical scores. By performing FISH retesting for these samples, consistency among multiple institutions could be archived. The quality of the staining procedures performed and the consistency of evaluations require regular assessment.

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

4.3
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