4.4 Article

Amplification of the HER2 gene in breast cancers testing 2+ weak positive by HercepTest immunohistochemistry: false-positive for false-negative immunohistochemistry?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 60, 期 6, 页码 690-693

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2006.039602

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The majority of cases of breast cancer scoring HER2 weak positive (2+) on immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the HercepTest are not associated with amplification of the HER2/neu gene. Aim: To examine the reproducibility of IHC in cases scoring 2+ subsequently shown to have gene amplification by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH). Methods: A retrospective analysis of 153 cases referred for FISH confirmation of a weak positive HercepTest (2+) result was performed. Repeat IHC was undertaken in cases with weak positive (2+) referral IHC and amplification of the HER2 gene by FISH. Results: Amplification of the HER2 gene was confirmed in 29/153 cases (19%) scoring 2+ on IHC. Repeat IHC was carried out on 25 IHC 2+ cases: 7 (28%) scored 2+ on repeat IHC, 18 (72%) scored 3+ and were reclassified as strong positive. A heterogeneous expression pattern was present in 3/17 cases scoring 3+. Conclusions: The majority of HercepTest 2+ results are not accompanied by gene amplification and represent false positive IHC in terms of prognostic or therapeutic relevance. A small proportion of HercepTest 2+ scores represent true 2+ IHC positive cases accompanied by gene amplification: a category probably biologically related to 3+ IHC cases. The remainder of cases of HercepTest(TM) 2+ accompanied by gene amplification represent a category of referral IHC 2+ weak positive, FISH amplified, repeat IHC 3+ strong positive, best described as false negative 2+ IHC. This has implications for selection of cases for FISH analysis where weak positive (2+) IHC score is used as a triage for FISH testing, and for testing strategies in referral laboratories undertaking FISH analysis.

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

4.4
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