Cargando…

Validation of a Fully Automated HER2 Staining Kit in Breast Cancer

Background: Testing for HER2 amplification and/or overexpression is currently routine practice to guide Herceptin therapy in invasive breast cancer. At present, HER2 status is most commonly assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Standardization of HER2 IHC assays is of utmost clinical and economica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moelans, Cathy B., Kibbelaar, Robby E., van den Heuvel, Marius C., Castigliego, Domenico, de Weger, Roel A., van Diest, Paul J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOS Press 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4619247/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20203372
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/CLO-2010-0514
_version_ 1782397058096824320
author Moelans, Cathy B.
Kibbelaar, Robby E.
van den Heuvel, Marius C.
Castigliego, Domenico
de Weger, Roel A.
van Diest, Paul J.
author_facet Moelans, Cathy B.
Kibbelaar, Robby E.
van den Heuvel, Marius C.
Castigliego, Domenico
de Weger, Roel A.
van Diest, Paul J.
author_sort Moelans, Cathy B.
collection PubMed
description Background: Testing for HER2 amplification and/or overexpression is currently routine practice to guide Herceptin therapy in invasive breast cancer. At present, HER2 status is most commonly assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Standardization of HER2 IHC assays is of utmost clinical and economical importance. At present, HER2 IHC is most commonly performed with the HercepTest which contains a polyclonal antibody and applies a manual staining procedure. Analytical variability in HER2 IHC testing could be diminished by a fully automatic staining system with a monoclonal antibody. Materials and Methods: 219 invasive breast cancers were fully automatically stained with the monoclonal antibody-based Oracle HER2 Bond IHC kit and manually with the HercepTest. All cases were tested for amplification with chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH). Results: HercepTest yielded an overall sharper membrane staining, with less cytoplasmic and stromal background than Oracle in 17% of cases. Overall concordance between both IHC techniques was 89% (195/219) with a kappa value of 0.776 (95% CI 0.698–0.854), indicating a substantial agreement. Most (22/24) discrepancies between HercepTest and Oracle showed a weaker staining for Oracle. Thirteen of the 24 discrepant cases were high-level HER2 amplified by CISH, and in 12 of these HercepTest IHC better reflected gene amplification status. All the 13 HER2 amplified discrepant cases were at least 2+ by HercepTest, while 10/13 of these were at least 2+ for Oracle. Considering CISH as gold standard, sensitivity of HercepTest and Oracle was 91% and 83%, and specificity was 94% and 98%, respectively. Positive and negative predictive values for HercepTest and Oracle were 90% and 95% for HercepTest and 96% and 91% for Oracle, respectively. Conclusion: Fully-automated HER2 staining with the monoclonal antibody in the Oracle kit shows a high level of agreement with manual staining by the polyclonal antibody in the HercepTest. Although Oracle shows in general some more cytoplasmic staining and may be slightly less sensitive in picking up HER2 amplified cases, it shows a higher specificity and may be considered as an alternative method to evaluate the HER2 expression in breast cancer with potentially less analytical variability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4619247
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher IOS Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46192472016-01-12 Validation of a Fully Automated HER2 Staining Kit in Breast Cancer Moelans, Cathy B. Kibbelaar, Robby E. van den Heuvel, Marius C. Castigliego, Domenico de Weger, Roel A. van Diest, Paul J. Cell Oncol Other Background: Testing for HER2 amplification and/or overexpression is currently routine practice to guide Herceptin therapy in invasive breast cancer. At present, HER2 status is most commonly assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Standardization of HER2 IHC assays is of utmost clinical and economical importance. At present, HER2 IHC is most commonly performed with the HercepTest which contains a polyclonal antibody and applies a manual staining procedure. Analytical variability in HER2 IHC testing could be diminished by a fully automatic staining system with a monoclonal antibody. Materials and Methods: 219 invasive breast cancers were fully automatically stained with the monoclonal antibody-based Oracle HER2 Bond IHC kit and manually with the HercepTest. All cases were tested for amplification with chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH). Results: HercepTest yielded an overall sharper membrane staining, with less cytoplasmic and stromal background than Oracle in 17% of cases. Overall concordance between both IHC techniques was 89% (195/219) with a kappa value of 0.776 (95% CI 0.698–0.854), indicating a substantial agreement. Most (22/24) discrepancies between HercepTest and Oracle showed a weaker staining for Oracle. Thirteen of the 24 discrepant cases were high-level HER2 amplified by CISH, and in 12 of these HercepTest IHC better reflected gene amplification status. All the 13 HER2 amplified discrepant cases were at least 2+ by HercepTest, while 10/13 of these were at least 2+ for Oracle. Considering CISH as gold standard, sensitivity of HercepTest and Oracle was 91% and 83%, and specificity was 94% and 98%, respectively. Positive and negative predictive values for HercepTest and Oracle were 90% and 95% for HercepTest and 96% and 91% for Oracle, respectively. Conclusion: Fully-automated HER2 staining with the monoclonal antibody in the Oracle kit shows a high level of agreement with manual staining by the polyclonal antibody in the HercepTest. Although Oracle shows in general some more cytoplasmic staining and may be slightly less sensitive in picking up HER2 amplified cases, it shows a higher specificity and may be considered as an alternative method to evaluate the HER2 expression in breast cancer with potentially less analytical variability. IOS Press 2010 2010-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4619247/ /pubmed/20203372 http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/CLO-2010-0514 Text en Copyright © 2010 Hindawi Publishing Corporation and the authors.
spellingShingle Other
Moelans, Cathy B.
Kibbelaar, Robby E.
van den Heuvel, Marius C.
Castigliego, Domenico
de Weger, Roel A.
van Diest, Paul J.
Validation of a Fully Automated HER2 Staining Kit in Breast Cancer
title Validation of a Fully Automated HER2 Staining Kit in Breast Cancer
title_full Validation of a Fully Automated HER2 Staining Kit in Breast Cancer
title_fullStr Validation of a Fully Automated HER2 Staining Kit in Breast Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Validation of a Fully Automated HER2 Staining Kit in Breast Cancer
title_short Validation of a Fully Automated HER2 Staining Kit in Breast Cancer
title_sort validation of a fully automated her2 staining kit in breast cancer
topic Other
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4619247/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20203372
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/CLO-2010-0514
work_keys_str_mv AT moelanscathyb validationofafullyautomatedher2stainingkitinbreastcancer
AT kibbelaarrobbye validationofafullyautomatedher2stainingkitinbreastcancer
AT vandenheuvelmariusc validationofafullyautomatedher2stainingkitinbreastcancer
AT castigliegodomenico validationofafullyautomatedher2stainingkitinbreastcancer
AT dewegerroela validationofafullyautomatedher2stainingkitinbreastcancer
AT vandiestpaulj validationofafullyautomatedher2stainingkitinbreastcancer