Cargando…
Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction offers an improvisation over conventional immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization for ascertaining Her2 status of breast cancer
BACKGROUND: Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (DDPCR) is a recent modality for detecting Her2 expression which is quantitative, cheaper, easier to standardize, and free from interobserver variation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to incorporate DDPCR in the current diagnostic paradigm...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6852626/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31807475 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sajc.sajc_344_18 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (DDPCR) is a recent modality for detecting Her2 expression which is quantitative, cheaper, easier to standardize, and free from interobserver variation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to incorporate DDPCR in the current diagnostic paradigm with clinical benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four consecutive patients were tested by immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and DDPCR. With FISH result as gold standard, receiver operating characteristic curves for DDPCR ratio were analyzed to label Her2-negative, equivocal, and positive cases as DDPCR score 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Proportion of patients labeled unequivocally as Her2 positive or negative was defined to have “clinically benefitted” from the test. Drawing parallel to inter-relationships between DDPCR, IHC, and FISH in the test cohort, four diagnostic pathways were defined – (1) initial IHC followed by FISH, (2) initial DDPCR followed by FISH, (3) initial IHC followed by DDPCR followed by FISH, and (4) initial DDPCR followed by IHC followed by FISH. RESULTS: Clinical benefit of DDPCR as an initial test in the test cohort was 57%, while it was 65% if used as a second-line test among those with an initial inconclusive IHC result. Sensitivity analysis in the simulation cohort revealed that if DDPCR cost was ≤0.6 times the cost of IHC, then a three-step pathway with DDPCR upfront would near certainly prove most cost beneficial. If DDPCR cost was >0.6 but ≤2 times the cost of IHC, then a three-step pathway with DDPCR as second-line test had a higher probability to prove most cost beneficial. If DDPCR cost was >2 times the cost of IHC, then conventional pathway had a higher probability to prove most cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Incorporating DDPCR in the current clinical diagnostic paradigm has the potential to improve its cost-effectiveness and benefit. |
---|