HER2 analysis in breast cancer: reduced immunoreactivity in FISH non-informative cancer biopsies.
Standard
HER2 analysis in breast cancer: reduced immunoreactivity in FISH non-informative cancer biopsies. / Tapia, Coya; Schraml, Peter; Simon, Ronald; Al-Kuraya, Khawla S; Maurer, Robert; Mirlacher, Martina; Novotny, Hedvika; Spichtin, Hanspeter; Mihatsch, Michael J; Sauter, Guido.
In: INT J ONCOL, Vol. 25, No. 6, 6, 2004, p. 1551-1557.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - HER2 analysis in breast cancer: reduced immunoreactivity in FISH non-informative cancer biopsies.
AU - Tapia, Coya
AU - Schraml, Peter
AU - Simon, Ronald
AU - Al-Kuraya, Khawla S
AU - Maurer, Robert
AU - Mirlacher, Martina
AU - Novotny, Hedvika
AU - Spichtin, Hanspeter
AU - Mihatsch, Michael J
AU - Sauter, Guido
PY - 2004
Y1 - 2004
N2 - Due to the central role in predicting response to herceptin and possibly also other anticancer drugs, accurate and reproducible detection of the HER2 status is important. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) are the most commonly used methods for HER2 analysis. It is a disadvantage of FISH that a fraction of cases remain not interpretable probably due to suboptimal tissue handling before analysis. To investigate a possible influence of tissue damage on the results of HER2 IHC we compared the HER2 IHC results obtained in tumors with and without interpretable FISH in a breast cancer tissue microarray. The HER2 IHC results differed greatly between 1551 tumors with interpretable HER2 FISH signals and 405 breast cancers showing no FISH signals. FISH informative tumors had an IHC score of 3+ in 12.6%, 2+ in 3% and 1+ in 9.2% of cases. FISH non-informative tumors showed significantly lower IHC scores (p <0.0001). They were IHC 3+ in 3.9%, 2+ in 3.7% and 1+ in 4.4% of cases. Overall, the data show that not only FISH but also IHC results are dependent on good tissue quality for successful analysis. Poor tissue quality can be easily identified in FISH analyses because of a lack of hybridization signals. Inappropriate tissue handling is more dangerous in IHC because an artificial lack of staining can be regarded as 'negative' result.
AB - Due to the central role in predicting response to herceptin and possibly also other anticancer drugs, accurate and reproducible detection of the HER2 status is important. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) are the most commonly used methods for HER2 analysis. It is a disadvantage of FISH that a fraction of cases remain not interpretable probably due to suboptimal tissue handling before analysis. To investigate a possible influence of tissue damage on the results of HER2 IHC we compared the HER2 IHC results obtained in tumors with and without interpretable FISH in a breast cancer tissue microarray. The HER2 IHC results differed greatly between 1551 tumors with interpretable HER2 FISH signals and 405 breast cancers showing no FISH signals. FISH informative tumors had an IHC score of 3+ in 12.6%, 2+ in 3% and 1+ in 9.2% of cases. FISH non-informative tumors showed significantly lower IHC scores (p <0.0001). They were IHC 3+ in 3.9%, 2+ in 3.7% and 1+ in 4.4% of cases. Overall, the data show that not only FISH but also IHC results are dependent on good tissue quality for successful analysis. Poor tissue quality can be easily identified in FISH analyses because of a lack of hybridization signals. Inappropriate tissue handling is more dangerous in IHC because an artificial lack of staining can be regarded as 'negative' result.
M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz
VL - 25
SP - 1551
EP - 1557
JO - INT J ONCOL
JF - INT J ONCOL
SN - 1019-6439
IS - 6
M1 - 6
ER -
