4.7 Article

Evaluation of HER-2/neu gene amplification and overexpression:: Comparison of frequently used assay methods in a molecularly characterized cohort of breast cancer specimens

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 14, 页码 3095-3105

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.09.094

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA48780] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [N01-HD-3-3175] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare and evaluate HER-2/neu clinical assay methods. Materials and Methods: One hundred seventeen breast cancer specimens with known HER-2/neu amplification and overexpression status were assayed with four different immunohistochemical assays and two different fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays. Results: The accuracy of the FISH assays for HER-2/neu gene amplification was high, 97.4% for the Vysis PathVision assay (Vysis, Inc, Downers Grove, IL) and 95.7% for the the Ventana INFORM assay (Ventana, Medical Systems, Inc, Tucson, AZ). The immunohistochemical assay with the highest accuracy for HER-2/neu overexpression was obtained with R60 polyclonal antibody (96.6%), followed by immunohistochemical assays performed with 10H8 monoclonal antibody (95.7%), the Ventana CB 11 monoclonal antibody (89.7%), and the DAKO HercepTest (88.9%; Dako, Corp, Carpinteria, CA). Only the sensitivities, and therefore, overall accuracy, of the DAKO Herceptest and Ventana CB11 immunohistochemical assays were significantly different from the more sensitive FISH assay. Conclusion: Based on these findings, the FISH assays were highly accurate, with immunohistochemical assays performed with R60 and 10H8 nearly as accurate. The DAKO HercepTest and the Ventana CB11 immunohistochemical assay were statistically significantly different from the Vysis FISH assay in evaluating these previously molecularly characterized breast cancer specimens. (C) 2002 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

4.7
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