HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Methods

HER2 amplification or overexpression is considered as disease outcome and a predictive marker of response to treatment in breast cancer. The present study aimed to compare the results of IHC and FISH for determining HER2 and to search the interpretational differences. Samples (n= 169), of which 31 w...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Saglican,Yesim, Ince,Ümit
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	Sociedad Chilena de Anatomía 2015
Materias:	Breast cancer HER2 Immunocytochemistry FISH technique
Acceso en línea:	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-95022015000200051
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:scielo:S0717-95022015000200051
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:scielo:S0717-950220150002000512015-08-13HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) MethodsSaglican,YesimInce,Ümit Breast cancer HER2 Immunocytochemistry FISH technique HER2 amplification or overexpression is considered as disease outcome and a predictive marker of response to treatment in breast cancer. The present study aimed to compare the results of IHC and FISH for determining HER2 and to search the interpretational differences. Samples (n= 169), of which 31 were the paraffin blocks sent from outer centers, that underwent FISH analysis for HER-2 were included. Samples were re-reviewed by IHC in our laboratory. FISH test was negative in 131 (77.5%) and positive in 38 (22.5%). When those with previous IHC 0-1+ were re-reviewed, the results were found again 0-1+ and none of them was FISH positive. Inconsistency between re-reviewed IHC and previous IHC results was 25% for those with 2+ score and 11% for those with 3+ score. Consistency between IHC and FISH was 17% and 67% for previous IHC 2+ and 3+, respectively, whereas it was 23% and %75 for re-reviewed IHC 2+ and 3+, respectively. Whilst 79% of the samples evaluated as 2+ by the inexperienced pathologist were found to be 0-1+ on the re-review, all of them were FISH negative. According to our results, we suggest that samples with IHC 2+ should be re-reviewed by consulting with an experienced pathologist.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSociedad Chilena de AnatomíaInternational Journal of Morphology v.33 n.2 20152015-06-01text/htmlhttp://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-95022015000200051en10.4067/S0717-95022015000200051
institution	Scielo Chile
collection	Scielo Chile
language	English
topic	Breast cancer HER2 Immunocytochemistry FISH technique
spellingShingle	Breast cancer HER2 Immunocytochemistry FISH technique Saglican,Yesim Ince,Ümit HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Methods
description	HER2 amplification or overexpression is considered as disease outcome and a predictive marker of response to treatment in breast cancer. The present study aimed to compare the results of IHC and FISH for determining HER2 and to search the interpretational differences. Samples (n= 169), of which 31 were the paraffin blocks sent from outer centers, that underwent FISH analysis for HER-2 were included. Samples were re-reviewed by IHC in our laboratory. FISH test was negative in 131 (77.5%) and positive in 38 (22.5%). When those with previous IHC 0-1+ were re-reviewed, the results were found again 0-1+ and none of them was FISH positive. Inconsistency between re-reviewed IHC and previous IHC results was 25% for those with 2+ score and 11% for those with 3+ score. Consistency between IHC and FISH was 17% and 67% for previous IHC 2+ and 3+, respectively, whereas it was 23% and %75 for re-reviewed IHC 2+ and 3+, respectively. Whilst 79% of the samples evaluated as 2+ by the inexperienced pathologist were found to be 0-1+ on the re-review, all of them were FISH negative. According to our results, we suggest that samples with IHC 2+ should be re-reviewed by consulting with an experienced pathologist.
author	Saglican,Yesim Ince,Ümit
author_facet	Saglican,Yesim Ince,Ümit
author_sort	Saglican,Yesim
title	HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Methods
title_short	HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Methods
title_full	HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Methods
title_fullStr	HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Methods
title_full_unstemmed	HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Methods
title_sort	her2/neu status in breast cancer specimens: comparison of immunohistochemistry (ihc) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (fish) methods
publisher	Sociedad Chilena de Anatomía
publishDate	2015
url	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-95022015000200051
work_keys_str_mv	AT saglicanyesim her2neustatusinbreastcancerspecimenscomparisonofimmunohistochemistryihcandfluorescenceinsituhybridizationfishmethods AT inceumit her2neustatusinbreastcancerspecimenscomparisonofimmunohistochemistryihcandfluorescenceinsituhybridizationfishmethods
_version_	1718444919852367872

HER2/neu Status in Breast Cancer Specimens: Comparison of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) Methods

Ejemplares similares