JMD Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Originally published online as doi:10.2353/jmoldx.2008.080052 on October 2, 2008

Published online before print October 2, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Material
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jmoldx.2008.080052v1
10/6/527    most recent
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carbone, A.
Right arrow Articles by Verderio, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carbone, A.
Right arrow Articles by Verderio, P.
Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 2008, Vol. 10, No. 6
Copyright © 2008 American Society for Investigative Pathology & Association for Molecular Pathology
DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2008.080052

Delineation of HER2 Gene Status in Breast Carcinoma by Silver in Situ Hybridization is Reproducible among Laboratories and Pathologists

Antonino Carbone*, Gerardo Botti{dagger}, Annunziata Gloghini{ddagger}, Gianni Simone§, Mauro Truini, Maria Pia Curcio{dagger}, Patrizia Gasparini*, Anita Mangia§, Tiziana Perin{ddagger}, Sandra Salvi, Adele Testi* and Paolo Verderio**

From the Department of Pathology, * National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy; Department of Pathology, {dagger} National Cancer Institute "G. Pascale" of Naples, Naples, Italy; Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Pathology, {ddagger} Division of Pathology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Aviano, Italy; Department of Pathology, § Ospedale Oncologico, Bari, Italy; Department of Diagnostic Technologies, National Cancer Institute of Genoa, Genoa, Italy and Medical Statistics and Biometry, ** National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
An automated enzyme metallographic silver in situ hybridization method (SISH) has been reported to successfully determine human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) gene amplification. We evaluated the staining and interpretative reproducibility of the HER2 SISH assay at five laboratories and compared SISH results with other in situ hybridization (ISH) methods. The HER2 gene status of 89 breast carcinomas was analyzed in parallel using manual dual-color fluorescence ISH, manual chromogenic ISH, and bright-field automated SISH. A total of 1098 SISH-stained slides were evaluated. For comparison, all specimens were stained by 4B5 immunohistochemistry for HER2 protein expression. Interpretation was performed by pathologists at five different laboratories using the algorithms provided by the manufacturers and the guidelines of American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists. Staining and interpretative reproducibility were measured through the computation of weighted kappa statistics. Following the optimization of SISH staining, 1077/1098 (98%) of slides were evaluable. Excellent reproducibility and efficacy of HER2 SISH staining, and interobserver interpretation (Kw = 0.91), were observed among five sites. For the 89 invasive breast cancer cases, the overall rate of concordance between consensus 4B5 and consensus SISH, fluorescence ISH, and chromogenic ISH was 96.6% (86/89), 97.8% (87/89), and 96.6% (86/89), respectively. Overall concordance between positive and negative SISH and fluorescence ISH results, as well as between individual and consensus positive and negative SISH results, was excellent (P < 0.001).


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The identification of breast carcinomas that are HER2 (ERBB2) amplified and potentially responsive to targeted therapies relies on accurate and reproducible clinical laboratory assessment.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Currently, HER2 status is determined by detection of the encoded HER2 protein by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or by detection of the presence or absence of HER2 gene amplification assessed by in situ hybridization (ISH).6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 At present, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the reference standard technique for the assessment of the amplification state of the HER2 gene.

Despite attempts to improve the status of HER2 testing in routine clinical practice, testing inaccuracy remains a major issue with both IHC and FISH.13, 14, 15 Importantly, the use of laboratory assays as the sole determinant for therapy eligibility represents a significant challenge to pathologists performing and interpreting the results. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) therefore published important guidelines regarding HER2 testing in breast cancer.16

Recently, new bright field methods of ISH (chromogenic ISH, or CISH) have been developed.17, 18, 19 Preliminary studies have also illustrated a promising high-sensitivity ISH technique based on enzymatic metallography and metallic silver deposition (SISH), which has been used for genotyping HER2 in breast cancer.20, 21 In the present study, the HER2 gene amplification status of a series of breast cancer cases was examined in parallel by using FISH, CISH, and SISH. Pathologists at five Italian National Cancer Institutes reviewed and scored the slides following the guidelines of ASCO/CAP16 to compare the genetic assays. Specific aims of the study were: 1) to demonstrate feasibility of the HER2 SISH assay using multiple breast carcinoma samples from five sites, assessing staining efficacy, portability, and robustness; 2) to evaluate interlaboratory interpretative reproducibility of the HER2 SISH assay at five laboratories; 3) to compare SISH results with other ISH methods; and 4) to compare gene amplification status with protein HER2 expression.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study Design
The first phase of the study was based on the selection of infiltrating breast carcinomas and assessment of the state of amplification of the HER2 gene by HER2 FISH and HER2 CISH, followed by IHC analysis of HER2 protein expression using the 4B5 (Ventana) rabbit monoclonal antibody. In the second phase, the same cases were tested by using HER2 SISH. Comparison between the HER2 bright field ISH (CISH and SISH) and with HER2 FISH on the same cases, was performed to validate the SISH scoring systems. This phase of the study also included a test of interlaboratory interpretative reproducibility. The tests were performed by pathologists and experts (A.C., Milan; G.B., Naples; A.G., Aviano; G.S., Bari; M.T., Genoa) participating in the HER2 evaluation study for the Oncotipo Mammario ER2 Overesprimente (OMERO) project of the Alliance Against Cancer, the Association of the Italian National Cancer Institutes. OMERO is a multicenter, retrospective study of the biology and prognosis of 1647 patients with primary breast carcinomas diagnosed in Italy in 2000/2001 and scored as HER2-positive by IHC. A control for each case was identified as the first consecutive patient with HER2-negative breast cancer. A website dedicated to the OMERO study is available at http://www.progettomero.org (in Italian), where newsletters compiled during the project are also available.

Cohort Selection
For the study, each of the five participating cancer institutes provided breast carcinoma cases, consecutively identified from the series of the OMERO project of Alliance Against Cancer. Cases were diagnosed and surgically treated during the years 2000 and 2001 at the five Italian national Cancer Institutes in Milan (pilot site), Aviano, Bari, Genoa and Naples (hereafter randomly referred to as sites A, B, C, D, and E).

At each site, a consecutive case selection was made to develop a cohort for which 25% cases over-expressed HER2 (IHC score 3+ in the OMERO study) and a balanced distribution of IHC score 0, 1+ and 2+ for the remaining cases. A total cohort of 94 cases was identified: 20 from site A, 19 from site B, 20 from site C, 20 from site D, and 15 from site E; 24 cases of the cases were IHC score 3+.

All cases were fixed in 4% neutral buffered formalin for 6 to 48 hours at room temperature, followed by processing and paraffin-embedding according to the consolidated standard routine practice adopted by the laboratory of the institute that provided each case.

Tissue Sectioning and Slide Preparation
At four of the five sites participating in the study, 5 µm tissue sections were cut from paraffin blocks of the respective cases, according to the recommendations of the INFORM HER2 SISH assay manufacturer (Ventana). As two objectives of the study were evaluation of the HER2 SISH assay robustness and its reliability and portability in a multicentric environment at laboratories with different routine practices, tissue sections of cases from site E were cut at 3 to 4-µm thickness.

Similarly, the sections from three of the five sites were mounted on SuperFrost +/+ slides, according to Ventana’s indications, but the sections of cases from sites B and E were mounted on different types of slides (ProbeOn+ and SuperFrost Polylysine respectively).

A set of 41 sequentially numbered slide samples was prepared for each of the 94 cases, and allocated for the different staining procedures: five slides (one for each site) for H&E staining, three slides for FISH (performed at Milan), three slides for CISH (performed at Aviano), five slides (one for each site) for Pathway HER2 (clone 4B5) IHC staining, and 25 slides (five for each site) for SISH HER2 DNA and Chr 17 protocols setup and staining.

At each site, the slides were processed in parallel for H&E staining, IHC (Pathway anti-HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Antibody, Ventana), and SISH (INFORM HER2 DNA and Chromosome 17 probes and ultraVIEW SISH Detection Kit, Ventana).

The FISH (PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe Kit, Abbott/Vysis, Downers Glove, IL) and CISH (Zymed SpoT-Light HER2 CISH Kit, Zymed Laboratories Inc., South San Francisco, CA) assays were performed and evaluated at Milan and Aviano respectively.

Staining Procedures
The FISH procedures for HER2 were performed according to the recommendations of the probe manufacturer (Abbott/Vysis PathVysion, Downers Glove, IL), with some modifications.

Staining Procedures: FISH
Tissue sections were deparaffinized in xylene, rehydrated with graded ethanol, air dried, and heated in 5 mmol/L Tris and 1 mmol/L EDTA, pH 7.0, at 96°C for 15 minutes. Samples were pepsin digested (4% pepsin in 0.01N HCl) for 6 to 10 minutes at 37°C, with monitoring of the progression of the enzymatic digestion using a phase contrast microscope. The slides were then washed (twice for 3 minutes each) in distilled water, dehydrated with graded ethanols and air dried. After application of the hybridization mixes (PathVysion HER2 DNA Probe Kit), the specimens were codenatured at 85°C for 1 minute, and then hybridized at 37°C overnight using Vysis Hybrite equipment.

After hybridization, the slides were washed in 2x standard saline citrate/0.3% NP-40 at 72°C for 2 minutes, air dried, and counterstained with 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole. A minimum of 60 nuclei of invasive tumor cells were scored using Olympus epifluorescence microscope equipped with an x100 oil immersion objective and 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole/Spectrum Green/Orange single and triple bandpass filters.

The CISH procedures for HER2 were performed according to the recommendations of the probe manufacturer (Zymed Laboratories Inc., South San Francisco, CA), with some modifications.

Staining Procedures: CISH
Sections were deparaffinized and heated in a 1M NaCNS solution 95°C for 10 minutes. After two 5-minute washes at 4°C in distilled water, the slides were incubated with 3 to 10 µg/ml proteinase K (EC 3.4.21.64) (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) for 10 to 15 minutes at 37°C. The slides were then washed (twice at 5 minutes each, at 4°C) in distilled water, dehydrated with graded ethanols, and air dried. The digoxigenin-labeled HER2 probe (double-stranded) (Zymed Laboratories Inc.) was applied to the slides, covered with coverslips, and denatured at 96°C for 6 minutes on a heat block. Hybridization was performed overnight at 37°C in a humid chamber. The slides were then washed for 5 minutes with 0.5x standard saline citrate at 75°C, followed by a brief rinsing in phosphate buffered saline/0.25% Tween20. Immunodetection was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Finally, sections were lightly counterstained with hematoxylin.

A CISH procedure for Chr 17 was performed on parallel sections using a digoxigenin-labeled probe (ZytoDot CEN 17 probes; ZytoVision GmbH, Bremerhaven, Germany) under conditions similar to those adopted for HER2.

The SISH assay (INFORM HER2 DNA and Chr 17 probes and ultraVIEW SISH Detection Kit, Ventana) was performed on Ventana’s Benchmark XT (sites A, B, C, and D) and Benchmark IHC/ISH (site E) automated platforms. Before proceeding to run the SISH assays, all of the instruments were decontaminated, calibrated, and verified by qualified personnel.

As the study was multicentric, at each site the instrument operating protocols were appropriately optimized and calibrated, following Ventana’s indications, to compensate and minimize the potential heterogeneity of results, which could be generated by slight differences in the hardware performances and/or the preanalytical procedures at the five sites. Fixation conditions among the cases, aging of the case blocks, thickness of tissue sectioning (site E), and tissue adhesion on different types of slides (sites B and E) were particularly considered.

Automated SISH of consecutive slides from the same paraffin blocks as for H&E were stained for the INFORM HER2 DNA and Chr 17 probes.

Staining Procedures: SISH
For HER2 and Chr 17 SISH assay processing, Ventana’s Benchmark series of automated slide stainers were used. Automated SISH of consecutive slides from the same paraffin blocks as for H&E were stained for the INFORM HER2 DNA and Chr 17 probes. Both probes were labeled with dinitrophenol and optimally formulated for use with the ultraVIEW SISH Detection Kit and accessory reagents on Ventana’s Benchmark series of automated slide stainers. The HER2 DNA probe was denatured at 95°C for 12 minutes and hybridization was performed at 52°C for 2 hours. After hybridization, appropriate stringency washes (three times at 72°C) were performed. The Chr 17 probe was denatured at 95°C for 12 minutes and hybridization was performed at 44°C for 2 hours. After hybridization, appropriate stringency washes (three times at 59°C) were performed. The HER2 and Chr 17 dinitrophenol-labeled probes were visualized using the rabbit anti-dinitrophenol primary antibody and the ultraVIEW SISH Detection Kit. The detection kit contains a goat anti-rabbit antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase used as the chromogenic enzyme. The chemistry of the SISH reaction, briefly described, is driven by the sequential addition of silver A (silver acetate), silver B (hydroquinone), and silver C (H2O2). Here, the silver ions (Ag+) are reduced by hydroquinone to metallic silver atoms (Ag). This reaction is fueled by the substrate for horseradish peroxidase, hydrogen peroxide (silver C). The silver precipitation is deposited in the nuclei and a single copy of the HER2 gene is visualized as a black dot. The specimen is then counterstained with Ventana Hematoxylin II for interpretation by light microscopy.

Staining Procedures: IHC
For automated IHC staining with Pathway anti-HER2/neu (4B5) rabbit monoclonal antibody and ultraVIEW universal diaminobenzidine detection kit (Ventana), Ventana’s Benchmark series of automated slide stainers were used.

Group Training
In a 5-hour specific training session pathologists were shown the variety of staining patterns that may be observed in breast biopsies when stained with INFORM HER2 DNA and Chr 17 Probes. A set of photomicrographs allowed the readers to become familiar with the spectrum of staining patterns, including single copy staining of HER2 and Chr 17, amplified gene copies and clusters of HER2 staining, as well as staining artifacts that might be encountered.

Additionally, the images allowed the five readers to become familiar with the determination of slide adequacy, enumeration methods, and troubleshooting of the assay.

Finally, the scoring methods proposed by Ventana for the HER2 SISH assay evaluation were explained.

Determining HER2 Gene Status with SISH
To provide a scoring algorithm that fits within the workflow of a pathology laboratory and generates results that are reproducible among readers, Ventana has developed a two-part approach. Method 1 allows the reader to rapidly and semiquantitatively determine HER2 gene status for approximately 85% of all cases, which are either clearly negative or positive for HER2 gene amplification (ie, cases with an HER2/Chr 17 ratio less than 1.4 or greater than 4.0). This is obtained by analyzing the overall staining patterns of HER2 and Chr 17 within a target area. Alternatively, a reader may choose to skip Method 1 and proceed directly to Method 2, the quantitative method, for enumeration of the HER2/Chr 17 ratio.

For the minority of cases in which the HER2/Chr 17 ratio falls within the range of 1.4 to 4.0, the reader must proceed to Method 2, a quantitative method. This is recommended to ensure accuracy in determining HER2 gene status. As cited above, approximately 15% of breast carcinoma cases fall within the range of 1.4 and 4.0. Using Method 2 the reader records the quantitative enumeration of HER2 and Chr 17 signals in 20 nuclei within a target area, and calculates the HER2/Chr 17 ratio. Cases with an HER2/Chr 17 ratio lower than 1.8 are negative for HER2 gene amplification whereas cases with an HER2/Chr 17 ratio higher than 2.2 are positive for HER2 gene amplification and can be reported as such. Cases with an HER2/Chr 17 ratio that is either equal to or falls between 1.8 and 2.2 must be enumerated using Method 2A to ensure accuracy.

Using Method 2A the reader selects a second target area for each of HER2 and Chr 17 and counts the number of signals in 20 additional nuclei. The HER2/Chr 17 ratio using counts from both target areas is then calculated. A total of 40 nuclei will have been read between both target areas. The HER2/Chr 17 ratio is then calculated by dividing the total number of HER2 signals in both target areas (40 cells) by the total number of Chr 17 signals in both target areas (40 cells). Results are reported as: negative for HER2 gene amplification, defined as an HER2/Chr 17 ratio lower than 1.8; equivocal for HER2 gene amplification, defined as an HER2/Chr 17 ratio equal to or between 1.8 and 2.2; positive for HER2 gene amplification, defined as an HER2/Chr 17 ratio higher than 2.2.

Scoring
All cases were scored independently by readers as follows: HER2 FISH slides were reviewed by the reader at the FISH reference site only (Milan); HER2 CISH slides were reviewed by the reader at the CISH reference site only (Aviano); H&E, HER2 SISH, chromosome 17 (Chr 17) SISH, and CONFIRM HER2 4B5 slides were reviewed by the readers at the sites where the slides were stained. H&E-stained slides were available to each scoring pathologist to evaluate the histological adequacy of tissue sections, and for identification of tumor areas for SISH and CISH scoring.

Evaluation was performed by pathologists at the five different laboratories according to the algorithms provided by the manufacturers and the guidelines of ASCO/CAP.

Scoring Criteria and Algorithms: FISH
According to ASCO/CAP guidelines,16 HER2 gene amplification status was classified applying the following criteria: negative for HER2 gene amplification was defined as an HER2/Chr 17 ratio lower than 1.8; equivocal for HER2 gene amplification was defined as an HER2/Chr 17 ratio between 1.8 and 2.2; positive for HER2 gene amplification was defined as an HER2/Chr 17 ratio higher than 2.2 on an average of 60 cells. The detailed evaluation was performed following the instructions provided by the manufacturer (ABBOTT/Vysis PathVysion CE Package Insert Revision I (2002).

Scoring Criteria and Algorithms: CISH
Interpretation of CISH results was based on the interpretation guide provided by the HER2 probe manufacturer (Zymed Laboratories Inc.). Briefly, tumors were classified depending on the number of gene copies in the nuclei as (a) nonamplified, those with 1 to 5 brown intranuclear dots of HER2 gene present per nucleus in >50% of tumor cells in the chosen area for enumeration; and (b) amplified those with >6 brown intranuclear dots or when small or large clusters were seen in at least 50% of nuclei. Though Chr 17 is not part of the aforementioned interpretation guide, on equivocal cases with results at or near the cutoff point between amplification and nonamplification (ie, between 4.8 and 5.5 dots) a CISH for Chr 17 was performed to confirm/exclude polysomy, as recently recommended during an Italian Consensus Workshop on the different methods for the study of HER2 gene status (Consensus Workshop on the Use of the Different Methods for Determination of the Status of HER2. Palermo, 26–27 May 2006; manuscript in preparation).

Scoring Criteria and Algorithms: SISH
According to ASCO/CAP guidelines,16 HER2 gene amplification status was classified applying the following criteria: negative for HER2 gene amplification was defined as an HER2/Chr 17 ratio lower than 1.8; equivocal for HER2 gene amplification was defined as an HER2/Chr 17 ratio between 1.8 and 2.2; positive for HER2 gene amplification was defined as a HER2/Chr 17 ratio higher than 2.2.

A detailed evaluation was performed following the instructions provided by the manufacturer (Ventana INFORM HER2 DNA Probe CE Package Insert 16034EN Revision 1 [2007]).

The SISH slides were read without knowledge of the HER2 results obtained by IHC and FISH. FISH results were not disclosed to the readers before a consensus diagnosis was established.

Furthermore, to better explore the relationship between SISH consensus and FISH, the pertinent quantitative results were classified in three different categories defined as follows: a category with HER2/Chr17 ratio <1.5, representing cases negative for HER2 gene amplification; a category with HER2/Chr17 ratio >3.0 representing cases positive for HER2 gene amplification; a wide category with HER2/Chr17 ratio between 1.5 and 3.0, including also the equivocal cases.

Scoring Criteria and Algorithms: IHC
According to ASCO/CAP guidelines,16 HER2 protein expression status was classified applying the following criteria: negative for HER2 protein was an IHC staining of 0 or 1+ with no staining or weak, incomplete membrane staining in any proportion of tumor cells; equivocal for HER2 protein was an IHC staining of 2+ with complete membrane staining either non-uniform or weak in intensity but with obvious circumferential distribution in at least 10% of cells; positive for HER2 protein was an IHC staining of 3+ with uniform intense membrane staining of >30% of invasive tumor cells.

Reproducibility Analyses
Reproducibility between each laboratory and the consensus (see below) as well as the interlaboratory reproducibility related to the clinical interpretation of both HER2 SISH and IHC assay were evaluated by the computation of the weighted kappa statistic (Kw).22 This approach makes it possible to adjust the observed agreement for chance by making allowance for the relative seriousness of disagreement (ie, the distance between the categories). Kw values lie between zero (absence of agreement) and 1 (absolute agreement). Observed values of Kw were considered satisfactory if equal to or greater than 0.80. Only samples that were fully assessed by all of the five sites were included in the reproducibility analyses.

Consensus, Resolution of Discrepant Cases and Comparison between Methods
To compare SISH with the other ISH methods and gene amplification status with protein HER2 expression, a consensus value (consensus) was defined for both SISH and IHC methods as the agreement of three or more members representing either a simple or greater majority. Resolution of discrepancies and consensus were discussed during a common microscopy session, which included slide reviews of the discrepant samples stained at the five sites. Finally FISH results were compared with CISH results. Comparisons between methods results were performed by the Fisher exact test.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Case Evaluation
Of the 94 cases entering the study, four cases were not assessable with any of the three different ISH techniques (FISH, CISH, and SISH), and therefore were excluded. Another case was not assessable due to absence of adequate SISH signals and was excluded from the study.

FISH and SISH results were scored according to ASCO/CAP guidelines,16 interpretation of CISH results was based on the interpretation guide provided by the HER2 probe manufacturer (see also Materials and Methods).

Interlaboratory SISH Staining
Assessment of Efficacy
Analysis of the interlaboratory assessment of staining efficacy performed on 89 cases at 5 sites with different routine practices ranged from 93.3% to 98.9%, and revealed that 429 SISH stained cases of 445 (96.4%) were assessable with HER2 SISH. Every case with an inadequate HER2 DNA or CHR 17 slide sample was considered not assessable.

Assessment of Portability
The SISH assay interlaboratory portability, expressed as the number of cases successfully processed and assessed through five, four, three, or two sites, demonstrated that 76 of 89 cases (85.4%) were fully assessed by all of the five sites, independently of their routine practices; 11 cases (12.4%) were assessable in four of the five sites; 1 case (1.1%) was assessable in three sites; and one case (1.1%) was assessable in two sites.

Assessment of Robustness
Our data demonstrated that within a total set of 1098 slides processed with the HER2 SISH assay (HER2 DNA and CHR 17 probes) the most recurring issue during protocol optimization was excessive background (101 samples, corresponding to 9.2%), followed by poor morphology (68 samples, corresponding to 6.2%). Tissue loss from slides and absence of signal occurred less frequently (each point on 25 samples, each corresponding to 2.3%). After protocol optimization, the samples inadequate due to excessive background decreased significantly to one slide (0.1%); the morphological inadequacy was still present on three slides (0.3%). The slide inadequacy after protocol optimization due to tissue fall was reduced to three slides (0.3%), and the lack of signal decreased to 21 slides (1.3%) (see Table 1Go ). Thus, after staining optimization, 1077 of 1098 SISH stained slides (98%) were evaluable.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Inadequacy Issues Found during SISH Automated Protocol Optimization

 
SISH Reproducibility Analyses
Assessment of interobserver reproducibility was determined by performing all possible pairwise comparisons. Our results showed that in general the level of agreement was excellent (Supplemental Table 1 at http://jmd.amjpathol.org/), with a median Kw value of 0.91 (range, 0.75 to 1.00). For each laboratory a median Kw value greater then 0.80 was observed (Supplemental Table 2 at http://jmd.amjpathol.org/).

Table 2Go details results of SISH HER2 gene status obtained from 89 invasive breast cancer cases and the corresponding 429 SISH assays assessable at the five laboratories. The agreement between SISH consensus and individual site SISH assessment ranged from 97.6% to 100% corresponding to Kw values ranging between 0.86 and 1.00.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Concordance of Individual Site SISH Assessment Versus Consensus SISH

 
Among the 429 SISH assessable assays, there were discrepant results relating to two cases. Case 1 was equivocal by SISH (see Figure 1Go ). It was equivocal also for the other ISH methods (FISH and CISH) (Table 3)Go . Case 2, which showed high polysomy, revealed the following discrepancies: no HER2 gene amplification for the readers at sites B and D, HER2 gene amplification for the readers at sites C and E, and equivocal for the reader at site A.


Figure 1
View larger version (136K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. A and B: This case is equivocal for SISH HER2 gene amplification. Note that chromosome 17 is polysomic. A: In the nuclei there are two or more copies of chromosome 17. The corresponding FISH and CISH results were equivocal (not shown).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Individual Site SISH Results Versus FISH and CISH Results

 
Comparison of SISH Results with Other ISH Methods
By using the Fisher exact test we found a statistically significant association (P < 0.001) between individual site SISH assessment and each of the other considered ISH methods (FISH and CISH) (Table 3)Go .

By comparing in the 89 cases SISH consensus with FISH and CISH, 88 (98.9%) and 87 (97.8%) cases were classified in the same categories, respectively (Figure 2Go and Supplemental Figure 1 at http://jmd.amjpathol.org/).


Figure 2
View larger version (132K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. The figure shows a typical example of an amplified case as demonstrated by SISH. A: Less than 3 chromosome 17 signals in tumors cells can be seen. B: same case, HER2. Clusters of HER2 signals in tumor cells are recognizable.

 
By comparing in the 89 cases FISH with CISH assay, 88 (98.9%) cases were classified in the same categories.

Challenging Cases
Table 4Go summarizes aberrant ISH patterns. Fourteen cases (15.7%) showed aberrant ISH patterns. These included samples with a heterogeneous tumor population and with Chr 17 aneusomy (monosomy or polysomy). One case showed a very small clone of invasive cancer cells (<5%) with high amplification levels (>21 copies) of HER2, whereas the remaining tumor cells had two normal centromere 17 signals each, and only one copy of the HER2 gene. When the signals from all of the nuclei of this sample were averaged, the ratio was lower than 2.0. Also, nine cases were observed with incidence of extra copies of HER2 in approximately 50% of the nuclei of the cell population, associated with low or high polysomy of Chr 17. Three cases showed monosomy of Chr 17: in each cell only one signal for HER2, and only one signal of centromere 17 were seen. Finally, one case showed in each cell a cluster of innumerable HER2 signals and, at the same time, clusters of centromere 17 signals. The formal HER2/CEP17 ratio score was 1, even though the number of HER2 signals was consistent with amplification but the HER2/CHR17 ratio did not reflect the real HER2 status. A normal pattern of endogenous HER2 and CHR17 signals was present.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Challenging Cases with Aberrant Genetic Patterns

 
Table 5Go reports SISH consensus results and FISH HER2 results obtained by considering three different categories defined by a HER2/Chr17 ratio <1.5, between 1.5 and 3.0 and >3.0. In this case the overall concordance rate was 91.0%. The highest concordance rate was observed for the categories with ratio <1.5 and >3.0 (95.0% and 90.9% respectively) whereas for the category with ratio ranging from 1.5 and 3.0 was observed the lowest concordance rate (57.1%).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. SISH Consensus Versus FISH for Three Different Categories Defined by a HER2/Chr17 Ratio <1.5, between 1.5 and 3.0, and >3.0, Respectively

 
IHC Assay Reproducibility Analyses
The results of 4B5 antibody immunostaining obtained from the examined 89 invasive breast cancer cases and the corresponding 439 immunostaining assays assessable at the five laboratories showed that the interobserver interpretative reproducibility was excellent (Kw = 1.00) for all of the considered pairwise comparisons. As regards the comparison between the 4B5 IHC consensus value and individual site 4B5 assessment, our results showed that the level of excellent was satisfactory for all sites (Kw = 1.00). Among the 439 assessable IHC assays, there was only one equivocal case (in terms of HER2 protein expression), with discrepant results. The case analysis revealed the following scoring disagreement: no HER2 protein overexpression for the readers at sites A and D, HER2 protein overexpression for the readers from sites C and E, and sample not assessable for the reader at site B.

Comparison between Gene Amplification Status and HER2 Protein Expression
By using the Fisher exact test we found a statistically significant association (P < 0.001) between HER2 protein expression detected by IHC with 4B5 antibody and gene amplification status obtained by each of the ISH methods (Supplemental Figure 2 at http://jmd.amjpathol.org/).

By considering the 89 invasive beast cancer cases, the overall rate of concordance between consensus 4B5 and consensus SISH, FISH, and CISH was 96.6% (86/89), 97.8% (87/89), and 96.6% (86/89), respectively (Supplemental Table 3 at http://jmd.amjpathol.org/).

When consensus 4B5 was compared to FISH, two cases were discrepant: the afore mentioned case (discrepant 4B5, FISH-amplified), and case 1, previously described, which resulted equivocal for all three molecular methods (FISH, CISH, and SISH), and showed a consensus on non-overexpression of HER2 protein detected by IHC with 4B5 antibody.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In the present study, the HER2 gene amplification status of a series of breast cancer cases, which were diagnosed at five separate laboratories, was examined in parallel by using FISH, CISH, and SISH. Results of the study demonstrated interlaboratory staining efficacy of the HER2 SISH assay on samples from five sites. Overall, the results of the study indicated good efficacy and portability, and excellent robustness of the HER2 SISH assay in the interlaboratory environment.

From a performance standpoint, the overall assessment of efficacy, evaluated on a heterogeneous set of cases surgically treated in 2000 and 2001 at different cancer institutes and processed at five different sites, was excellent (96.4%). The strict application of the most recent ASCO/CAP16 guidelines to more standardized preanalytical routine practices should further increase the efficacy rate for the assay.

The full interlaboratory portability of the assay was 85.4%, expressed as the percentage of cases that were successfully processed and scored in all of the five sites involved in the study; the assay portability through four sites out of five was 12.4%. In total, high portability features were found on 97.8% of the cases, whereas poor portability occurrences accounted for 2.2%. These figures are compatible with a definition of the HER2 SISH assay as portable and reproducible in a multicentric context involving laboratories with different routine practices.

As regards assay robustness, when applying the standard initial operating protocol (protease III for 8 minutes) evaluated on the complete set of 1098 slides processed revealed an initial 80% staining success rate. The major sources of inadequate staining were excessive background and the morphological alterations of the tissue sections (15.4% total inadequacy). Inadequacies due to tissue loss and absence of assessable SISH signals had a minor impact on the study (4.6% total inadequacy). For slides failing initial staining, the manufacturer’s recommendation for staining a second slide using protease II for four minutes, which improved the successful staining rate to 98%. This improvement was particularly effective for resolving excessive background and morphological alterations (rate after protocol optimization 0.4%). These two issues proved to be inversely correlated with the strength of the enzymatic digestion step, and indicated that when the protocol optimization is carefully matched to fixation and processing conditions, the percentage of slide staining failures is very low.

Inadequate SISH staining for the 1.6% of samples inadequate after protocol optimization was attributable to tissue loss and absence of endogenous HER2 and/or CHR17 signal; both depend on laboratory preanalytical variables, and do not reflect the robust performance of the SISH assay.

Results of our study showed high SISH interobserver reproducibility at the five laboratories. In fact, the Kw values related to interobserver reproducibility between the consensus SISH and individual site SISH results ranged from 0.86 to 1.00. A similar high level of agreement was found in the two previous studies that examined interobserver interpretation of SISH HER2 status.20, 23 These observations, together with the present high level of reproducibility, validate the reliability of the SISH method for assessing HER2 status. Only two cases proved discrepant among the pathologists at the five laboratories. Discrepancy in observers’ SISH scoring among these cases was attributable to CHR17 polysomy. One of these cases was equivocal for HER2 gene amplification by SISH, FISH, and CISH.

Notably, there was excellent agreement among SISH, CISH, and FISH with regard to HER2 status assessment (Fischer exact test, P < 0.001). Discrepancy in results between SISH and FISH was encountered in two cases with polysomy of CHR 17, which resulted in SISH scores of low-level amplification/equivocal, whereas the corresponding FISH results showed no amplification. The rate of concordance between the CISH and FISH results was excellent (88/89, 98.9%), as also shown by previous studies.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Also the rate of concordance between SISH consensus and CISH results was excellent (87/89, 97.8%). However, the rate of concordance between SISH and FISH was lower for an intermediate group of cases with HER2/Chr ratio between 1.5 and 3.0 (see Table 5Go ). While SISH may provide what is needed for clinical decisions about Herceptin therapy, SISH would not be able to provide very much information about the actual degree of amplification as is provided by FISH. Some papers suggest that relatively low levels of amplification, as low as 1.5, (that may not be easily observed by SISH or not be reproducibly quantitated by SISH) may predict response to Herceptin.30

Challenging cases with monosomic and polysomic CHR 17, HER2 monoallelic deletion, and genotypic heterogeneity comprised 15.7% of the evaluated cases. These aberrant ISH patterns were encountered in all of the cases with a major scoring discrepancy and in three equivocal cases (Table 4)Go . Most cases with aberrant ISH patterns (9/14) showed extra copies of HER2 associated with polysomy of CHR17. Some investigators have interpreted this level of HER2 copy number elevation as a low level amplification31, 32, 33 or as a duplication of HER2.34 Nuclei with extra copies of HER2 frequently contained from 2 to 9 HER2 signals and from 1 to 4 CHR17 signals. These cells were uniformly distributed within the tumor population. We assume that these tumor cells are in the S phase of the cell cycle, and that duplication at the 17q HER2 sequence has already taken place, whereas the relative DNA sequences of centromere 17 will duplicate later, or this pattern may represent real tumor heterogeneity.

Using FISH as the reference standard, it has recently been shown that the anti-HER2 4B5 rabbit monoclonal antibody provides high sensitivity, specificity, and interlaboratory reproducibility for the detection of HER2 status in breast cancer.35 In our study, 4B5 demonstrated excellent interlaboratory reproducibility for the detection of HER2 status for each performed comparison (Kw = 1.00). The level of agreement between the consensus 4B5 and individual site assessment was satisfactory for all sites (Kw = 1.00). Moreover, there was statistically significant association of FISH, CISH, and SISH results with HER2 protein expression. These conclusions must also be tempered by the IHC preselection inclusion criteria for the samples used in this study.

Based on the results of this study, methods of bright field ISH—SISH and CISH—may be implemented in many routine pathology laboratories. Due to the stable metallic silver signal as a permanently archived slide, a cell-by-cell discussion to achieve consensus using a multihead microscope can be facilitated for difficult cases.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank all of the personnel, scientists and technicians from the five cancer institutes that contributed to the realization of this study. Our thanks also go out to Renata Roncadin for English review, Betty Johnston for Editorial assistance; Gianni Roncato for photographic contributions, and Alda Tosi and Maria Morelli for the preparation of the manuscript. We extend our thanks to Pinuccia Valagussa (Milan), Sylvie Ménard (Milan), Maria Luisa Carcangiu (Milan) Gabriella Sozzi (Milan), Barbara Canal (Aviano), Laura Zanier (Aviano), and Sara Pizzamiglio (Milan) for their relevant contributions to the realization of the study. We also thanks Francesca Dominoni, Maria Luisa Moiraghi, Sarah Ricca (Milan), Simona Boccardo (Genoa), Giuseppina Liguori (Naples), and Angela Labriola and Vincenza Rubini (Bari) for technical contributions. Finally, we thank Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. Tucson, AZ, for supplying reagents, automated platforms and qualified supporting personnel, and Histoline (Milan, Italy) and Olympus Italia for supplying reagents for CISH and FISH, respectively.


   Footnotes
 
Address reprint requests to Antonino Carbone, MD, Director of the Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, via Venezian, 1, 20133 Milan, Italy. E-mail: antonino.carbone{at}istitutotumori.mi.it

Supported in part by a Grant from the Ministero della Salute, Rome, within the framework of the "Progetto Integrato Oncologia-Advanced Molecular Diagnostics" project (to A.C.).

Supplemental material for this article can be found on http://jmd. amjpathol.org.

Author contributions: P.V. and S.M. contributed to the study design; S.M. is the Chairman of the Omero study; M.L.C. contributed to the Omero study, G.S. supervised the FISH study; B.C. and L.Z. contributed to the CISH analysis; S.P. contributed to statistical analysis.

Current address of A.G.: Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Accepted for publication June 19, 2008.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Slamon DJ, Godolphin W, Jones LA, Holt JA, Wong SG, Keith DE, Levin WJ, Stuart SG, Udove J, Ullrich A, Press MF: Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science 1989, 244:707-712[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Gschwind A, Fischer OM, Ullrich A: The discovery of receptor tyrosine kinases: target for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2004, 4:361-370[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Muleris M, Almeida A, Malfoy B, Dutrillaux B: Assignment of c-erb-B2 avian erythroblastic leukemic viral oncogene homolog 2 (ERBB2) to human chromosome band 17121.1 by in situ hybridization. Cytogenet Cell Genet 1997, 76:34-35[Medline]
  4. Coussens L, Yang-Feng TL, Liao Y-C, Chen E, Gray A, McGrath J, Seeburg PH, Libermann TA, Schlessinger J, Francke U, Levinson A, Ullrich A: Tyrosine kinase receptor with extensive homology to EGF receptor shares chromosomal location with neu oncogene. Science 1985, 230:1132-1139[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL: Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science 1987, 235:177-182[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Akiyama T, Sudo C, Ogawara H, Toyoshima K, Yamamoto T: The product of the human c-erbB-2 gene: a 185-kilodalton glycoprotein with tyrosine kinase activity. Science 1986, 232:1644-1646[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Press MF, Bernstein L, Thomas PA, Meisner LF, Zhou JY, Ma Y, Hung G, Robinson RA, Harris C, El-Naggar A, Slamon DJ, Phillips RN, Ross JS, Wolman SR, Flom KJ: HER-2/neu gene amplification characterized by fluorescence in situ hybridization: poor prognosis in node-negative breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:2894-2904[Abstract]
  8. Gusterson BA, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Price KN, Säve-Söderborgh J, Anbazhagan R, Styles J, Rudenstam CM, Golouh R, Reed R: Prognostic importance of c-erbB-2 expression in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992, 10:1049-1056[Abstract]
  9. Kallioniemi O-P, Holli K, Visakorpi T, Koivula T, Helin HH, Isola JJ: Association of c-erbB-2 protein expression with high rate of cell proliferation, increased risk of visceral metastasis and poor long-term survival in breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1991, 49:650-655[Medline]
  10. Vogel CL, Cobleigh MA, Tripathy D, Gutheil JC, Harris LN, Fehrenbacher L, Slamon DJ, Murphy M, Novotny WF, Burchmore M, Shak S, Stewart SJ, Press M: Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:719-726[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Bajamonde A, Fleming T, Eiermann W, Wolter J, Pegram M, Baselga J, Norton L: Concurrent administration of anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody and first-line chemotherapy for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. A phase III, multinational, randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med 2001, 344:783-792[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I, Gianni L, Baselga J, Bell R, Jackisch C, Cameron D, Dowsett M, Barrios CH, Steger G, Huang CS, Andersson M, Inbar M, Lichinitser M, Láng I, Nitz U, Iwata H, Thomssen C, Lohrisch C, Suter TM, Rüschoff J, Suto T, Greatorex V, Ward C, Straehle C, McFadden E, Dolci MS, Gelber RD, Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) Trial Study Team: : Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1659-1672[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Dowsett M, Hanna WM, Kockx M, Penault-Llorca F, Rüschoff J, Gutjahr T, Habben K, van de Vijver MJ: Standardization of HER2 testing: results of an international proficiency-testing ring study. Mod Pathol 2007, 20:584-591[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E, Romond E, Hiller W, Park K, Brown A, Yothers G, Anderson S, Smith R, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N: Real-world performance of HER2 testing – National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002, 94:852-854[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Roche PC, Suman VJ, Jenkins RB, Davidson NE, Martino S, Kaufman PA, Addo FK, Murphy B, Ingle JN, Perez EA: Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002, 94:855-857[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, Dowsett M, Fitzgibbons PL, Hanna WM, Langer A, McShane LM, Paik S, Pegram MD, Perez EA, Press MF, Rhodes A, Sturgeon C, Taube SE, Tubbs R, Vance GH, van de Vijver M, Wheeler TM, Hayes DF, American Society of Clinical Oncology; College of American Pathologists: : American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:118-145[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Tanner M, Gancberg D, Di Leo A, Larsimont D, Rouas G, Piccart MJ, Isola J: Chromogenic in situ hybridization: a practical alternative for fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in archival breast cancer samples. Am J Pathol 2000, 157:1467-1472[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Davison JM, Morgan TW, Hsi BL, Xiao S, Fletcher JA: Subtracted, unique-sequence, in situ hybridization: experimental and diagnostic applications. Am J Pathol 1998, 153:1401-1409[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Zhao J, Wu R, Au A, Marquez A, Yu Y, Shi Z: Determination of HER2 gene amplification by chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) in archival breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2002, 15:657-665[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Tubbs R, Pettay J, Hicks D, Skacel M, Powell R, Grogan T, Hainfeld J: Novel bright field molecular morphology methods for detection of HER2 gene amplification. J Mol Histol 2004, 35:589-594[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Downs-Kelly E, Pettay J, Hicks D, Skacel M, Yoder B, Rybicki L, Myles J, Sreenan J, Roche P, Powell R, Hainfeld J, Grogan T, Tubbs R: Analytical validation and interobserver reproducibility of EnzMet GenePro: a second-generation bright-field metallography assay for concomitant detection of HER2 gene status and protein expression in invasive carcinoma of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 2005, 29:1505-1511[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Fleiss JL: Statistical methods for rates and proportions 1981:212-236 Wiley and Sons New York
  23. Dietel M, Ellis IO, Höfler H, Kreipe H, Moch H, Dankof A, Kölble K, Kristiansen G: Comparison of automated silver enhanced in situ hybridisation (SISH) and fluorescence ISH (FISH) for the validation of HER2 gene status in breast carcinoma according to the guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists. Virchows Arch 2007, 451:19-25[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Di Palma S, Collins N, Faulkes C, Ping B, Ferns G, Haagsma B, Layer G, Kissin MW, Cook MG: Chromogenic in-situ hybridisation (CISH) should be an accepted method in the routine diagnostic evaluation of HER2 status in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 2007, 60:1067-1068[Free Full Text]
  25. Bhargava R, Lal P, Chen B: Chromogenic in situ hybridization for the detection of HER-2/neu gene amplification in breast cancer with an emphasis on tumors with borderline and low-level amplification: does it measure up to fluorescence in situ hybridization? Am J Clin Pathol 2005, 123:237-243[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Isola J, Tanner M, Forsyth A, Cooke TG, Watters AD, Bartlett JM: Interlaboratory comparison of HER-2 oncogene amplification as detected by chromogenic and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Clin Cancer Res 2004, 10:4793-4798[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Kostopoulou E, Vageli D, Kaisaridou D, Nakou M, Netsika M, Vladica N, Daponte A, Koukoulis G: Comparative evaluation of non-informative HER-2 immunoreactions (2(+)) in breast carcinomas with FISH. CISH and QRT-PCR Breast 2007, 16:615-624
  28. Hanna WM, Kwok K: Chromogenic in-situ hybridization: a viable alternative to fluorescence in-situ hybridization in the HER2 testing algorithm. Mod Pathol 2006, 19:481-487[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Sáez A, Andreu FJ, Seguí MA, Baré ML, Fernández S, Dinarés C, Rey M: HER-2 gene amplification by chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) compared with fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in breast cancer – A study of two hundred cases. Breast 2006, 15:519-527[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Jensen KC, Turbin DA, Leung S, Miller MA, Johnson K, Norris B, Hastie T, McKinney S, Nielsen TO, Huntsman DG, Gilks CB, West RB: New cutpoints to identify increased HER2 copy number: analysis of a large, population-based cohort with long-term follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008, , DOI: 10.1007/s10549-007-9887-y
  31. Pauletti G, Dandekar S, Rong H, Ramos L, Peng H, Seshadri R, Slamon DJ: Assessment of methods for tissue-based detection of the HER-2/neu alteration in human breast cancer: a direct comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18:3651-3664[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Jimenez RE, Wallis T, Tabasczka P, Visscher DW: Determination of HER-2/neu status in breast carcinoma: comparative analysis of immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization. Mod Pathol 2000, 13:37-45[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Couturier J, Vincent-Salomon A, Nicolas A, Beuzeboc P, Mouret E, Zafrani B, Sastre-Garau X: Strong correlation between results of fluorescent in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry for the assessment of the ERBB2 (HER-2/neu) gene status in breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2000, 13:1238-1243[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Perez EA, Roche PC, Jenkins RB, Reynolds CA, Halling KC, Ingle JN, Wold LE: HER2 testing in patients with breast cancer: poor correlation between weak positivity by immunohistochemistry and gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Mayo Clin Proc 2002, 77:148-154[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Powell WC, Hicks DG, Prescott N, Tarr SM, Laniauskas S, Williams T, Short S, Pettay J, Nagle RB, Dabbs DJ, Scott KM, Brown RW, Grogan T, Roche PC, Tubbs RR: A new rabbit monoclonal antibody (4B5) for the immunohistochemical (IHC) determination of the HER2 status in breast cancer: comparison with CB11, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and interlaboratory reproducibility. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007, 15:94-102[CrossRef][Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Material
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jmoldx.2008.080052v1
10/6/527    most recent
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carbone, A.
Right arrow Articles by Verderio, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carbone, A.
Right arrow Articles by Verderio, P.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS