Comparison of central laboratory assessments of ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 by IHC/FISH and the corresponding mRNAs (ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67) by RT-qPCR on an automated, broadly deployed diagnostic platform.

PURPOSE: The methods (IHC/FISH) typically used to assess ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 in FFPE specimens from breast cancer patients are difficult to set up, perform, and standardize for use in low and middle-income countries. Use of an automated diagnostic platform (GeneXpert®) and assay (Xpert® Breast Cancer STRAT4) that employs RT-qPCR to quantitate ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67 mRNAs from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues facilitates analyses in less than 3 h. This study compares breast cancer biomarker analyses using an RT-qPCR-based platform with analyses using standard IHC and FISH for assessment of the same biomarkers. METHODS: FFPE tissue sections from 523 patients were sent to a College of American Pathologists-certified central reference laboratory to evaluate concordance between IHC/FISH and STRAT4 using the laboratory's standard of care methods. A subset of 155 FFPE specimens was tested for concordance with STRAT4 using different IHC antibodies and scoring methods. RESULTS: Concordance between STRAT4 and IHC was 97.8% for ESR1, 90.4% for PGR, 93.3% for ERBB2 (IHC/FISH for HER2), and 78.6% for MKi67. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.99, 0.95, 0.99, and 0.85 were generated for ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67, respectively. Minor variabilities were observed depending on the IHC antibody comparator used. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of breast cancer biomarker status by STRAT4 was highly concordant with central IHC/FISH in this blinded, retrospectively analyzed collection of samples. STRAT4 may provide a means to cost-effectively generate standardized diagnostic results for breast cancer patients in low- and middle-income countries.

CD163 immunohistochemistry is superior to CD68 in predicting outcome in classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: In recent years, research has increasingly focused on the microenvironment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) as a predictor of treatment outcome. The focus of this study was to assess the interobserver reproducibility in interpreting macrophage-associated immunohistochemistry (IHC) for CD68 and CD163 in a retrospective cohort of 88 patients with CHL. METHODS: Staining results were correlated with clinical outcome in all patients and those with a high international prognostic score (IPS). RESULTS: The intraclass correlation (ICC) for the five hematopathologists interpreting the IHC was stronger for CD163 (0.70) than for CD68 (0.50). Using a cutoff of 25% mean macrophage reactivity and including all patients, a statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) was seen only for CD163 (P = .0006) and not for CD68 (P = .414). Patients with a mean CD163 reactivity of 25% or more had a median OS of 71 months vs 101 months for patients with less than 25% reactivity. CD163 retained statistical significance in multivariate analysis. In patients with advanced-stage CHL with high IPS, OS was also significantly worse for those with a mean CD163 reactivity of 25% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms previous reports of a prognostic role of tumor-infiltrating macrophages in CHL, but only for CD163. Although most of the literature supports an increasing role of macrophage IHC as a predictor of clinical outcome, successful clinical translation will require a standardized method and reporting system.