4.3 Article

HER-2 testing in breast cancer using immunohistochemical analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization - A single-institution experience of 2,279 cases and comparison of dual-color and single-color scoring

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 121, 期 5, 页码 631-636

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
DOI: 10.1309/VE7862V2646BR6EX

关键词

HER-2/neu; ERBB2; immunohistochemistry; fluorescence in situ hybridization; FISH; breast cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyzed concordance between immunohistochemical analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in HER-2 status and studied the effect of dual-color (D-FISH) vs single-color FISH (S-FISH) scoring on the assignment of tumors to amplified or nonamplified categories. The assays were performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections of 2,2 79 invasive breast carcinomas. Immunohistochemical results were interpreted as negative (0, 1+) or positive (2 +, 3+). For FISH analyses, a ratio for HER-2/chromosome 17 of 2.0 or more (D-FISH) or an absolute HER-2 copy number per nucleus of more than 4.0 (S-FISH) were interpreted as positive gene amplification. We found 547 (24.0%) cases positive immunohistochemically, 326 (14.3%) by D-FISH, and 351 (15.4%) by S-FISH. Overall concordance in HER-2 status with immunohistochemical analysis was 87% for D-FISH and 86% for S-FISH. Excellent concordance was found among groups scored immunohistochemically as 0, 1 +, and 3+ (with D-FISH, 97%; with S-FISH, 96%). The most discordant category was the group scored 2+ immunohistochemically, in which only a quarter of the 2 + tumors were FISH(+). D-FISH and S-FISH scoring results were discordant in 89 tumors (4%), of which 8 (9%) had 3+ immunohistochemical staining and none showed high-level HER-2 amplification. Among all FISH(+) tumors, 10% were negative by immunohistochemical analysis, and notably almost half (47%) showed borderline to low HER-2 amplification (D-FISH score, 2.0-3.9); the clinical significance of these findings warrants further investigation.

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