Detailed Reanalysis of 500 Breast Cancers With Equivocal HER2 Immunohistochemistry and Borderline ERBB2 Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Results
| Autor: | Beiyun Chen, William R. Sukov, Idris Tolgay Ocal, Reid G. Meyer, Grant M. Spears, Katherine B. Geiersbach, Taofic Mounajjed, Jason A. Yuhas, Kristina M. Del Rosario, Robert B. Jenkins, Daniel R. Sill |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
0301 basic medicine
Oncology Adult medicine.medical_specialty Receptor ErbB-2 Breast Neoplasms 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Breast cancer Internal medicine Biomarkers Tumor Medicine Humans skin and connective tissue diseases In Situ Hybridization Fluorescence Aged Clinical Oncology medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry General Medicine Guideline Middle Aged medicine.disease Immunohistochemistry ERBB2 Status 030104 developmental biology 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Fish Female business Fluorescence in situ hybridization |
| Zdroj: | American journal of clinical pathology. 156(5) |
| ISSN: | 1943-7722 |
| Popis: | Objectives We investigated the impact of our laboratory’s reflex testing process for resolving ERBB2 (HER2) status on breast cancer samples that require additional workup after fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), per guideline recommendations published in 2018 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP). Methods In total, 500 breast cancer specimens with ERBB2 FISH results in groups 2 through 4 (all reported as immunohistochemistry [IHC] equivocal [2+] at external laboratories) were resubmitted for IHC testing in our laboratory. Per the ASCO/CAP guideline, FISH was rescored when internal IHC was also equivocal (2+), targeted to tumor areas demonstrating more intense IHC staining, if observed. Results Reflex IHC/FISH testing changed the final reported ERBB2 status in 185 of 500 (37.0%) samples. Result changes included discordant IHC (n = 4 score 0, n = 132 score 1+, and n = 16 score 3+) and discordant FISH (n = 33). Numerical differences in FISH scores were comparable for targeted vs nontargeted FISH rescoring (P = .086 for ERBB2 copy number; P = .49 for ERBB2 ratio). Two cases showed larger differences in FISH scores, suggesting heterogeneity. Conclusions Retesting of breast cancer samples with equivocal IHC frequently changes IHC results, but targeted reanalysis of borderline FISH results rarely identifies significant differences in ERBB2 copy number or ratio. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|