Interlaboratory Comparison of HER-2 Oncogene Amplification as Detected by Chromogenic and Fluorescence in situ Hybridization

Purpose: Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) is a new modification of the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique for detection of oncogene amplification in archival tumor samples. In CISH, the oncogene probe is detected using a peroxidase reaction, allowing use of transmitted light...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical cancer research 2004-07, Vol.10 (14), p.4793-4798
Hauptverfasser: ISOLA, Jorma, TANNER, Minna, FORSYTH, Amanda, COOKE, Timothy G, WATTERS, Amanda D, BARTLETT, John M. S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose: Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) is a new modification of the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique for detection of oncogene amplification in archival tumor samples. In CISH, the oncogene probe is detected using a peroxidase reaction, allowing use of transmitted light microscopy. We compared detection of HER-2 / neu amplification by CISH with a Food and Drug Administration-approved two-color FISH test in an interlaboratory setting. Experimental Design: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples from 197 breast cancers were analyzed for HER-2 amplification by CISH. Two-color FISH (PathVysion) CISH of 17 centromere was done if the observer considered it necessary to ascertain amplification status in tumors with borderline HER-2 CISH copy numbers. Results: Paired CISH/FISH results were available from 192 (97%) of 197 cases, no clear difference in success rates of either method was observed. Centromere 17 CISH was considered necessary in seven tumors. CISH and two-color FISH results were concordant in 180 cases (93.8%). There were 92 and 88 tumors found HER-2 amplified and nonamplified, respectively, by both methods. Eight tumors were amplified by CISH but not by FISH, and four tumors exhibited the opposite condition (kappa coefficient 0.875). In 7 of 12 cases differences between the two methods could have related to a lack of CISH chromosome 17 information. The remaining cases were explained by difficult histology (ductal carcinoma in situ , poor representativity, dense lymphocytic infiltration, or intratumoral heterogeneity). Conclusions: These results indicate that CISH could provide an accurate and practical alternative to FISH for clinical diagnosis of HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in archival formalin-fixed breast cancer samples.
ISSN:1078-0432
1557-3265
DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-0428-03