Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative Performance of Breast Cancer Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization and Brightfield In Situ Hybridization on College of American Pathologists Proficiency Tests.
Geiersbach, Katherine B; Bridge, Julia A; Dolan, Michelle; Jennings, Lawrence J; Persons, Diane L; Souers, Rhona J; Tsuchiya, Karen D; Vasalos, Patricia H; Moncur, Joel T.
Afiliação
  • Geiersbach KB; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
  • Bridge JA; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
  • Dolan M; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
  • Jennings LJ; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
  • Persons DL; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
  • Souers RJ; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
  • Tsuchiya KD; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
  • Vasalos PH; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
  • Moncur JT; From the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Geiersbach); the Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical Sc
Arch Pathol Lab Med ; 142(10): 1254-1259, 2018 10.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29733681
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT.­ Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and brightfield in situ hybridization (ISH) are 2 clinically approved laboratory methods for detecting ERBB2 (HER2) amplification in breast cancer. OBJECTIVE.­ To compare the performance of FISH and brightfield ISH on proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. DESIGN.­ Retrospective review was performed on 70 tissue core samples in 7 separate proficiency testing surveys conducted between 2009 and 2013. RESULTS.­ The samples included 13 consensus-amplified tissue cores, 53 consensus-nonamplified cores, and 4 cores that did not reach consensus for FISH and/or brightfield ISH. There were 2552 individual responses for FISH and 1871 individual responses for brightfield ISH. Consensus response rates were comparable for FISH (2474 of 2524; 98.0%) and brightfield ISH (2135 of 2189; 97.5%). The FISH analysis yielded an average HER2 copy number per cell that was significantly higher (by 2.86; P = .02) compared with brightfield ISH for amplified cores. For nonamplified cores, FISH yielded slightly, but not significantly, higher (by 0.17; P = .10) HER2 copy numbers per cell. There was no significant difference in the average HER2 to control ratio for either consensus-amplified or consensus-nonamplified cores. Participants reported "unable to analyze" more frequently for brightfield ISH (244 of 2453; 9.9%) than they did for FISH (160 of 2684; 6.0%). CONCLUSIONS.­ Our study indicates a high concordance rate in proficiency testing surveys, with some significant differences noted in the technical performance of these assays. In borderline cases, updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists cutoff thresholds that place greater emphasis on HER2 copy number per cell could accentuate those differences between FISH and brightfield ISH.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Patologia Clínica / Neoplasias da Mama / Hibridização In Situ / Receptor ErbB-2 Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Patologia Clínica / Neoplasias da Mama / Hibridização In Situ / Receptor ErbB-2 Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article