Display options
Cite
Grillo F, Fassan M, Ceccaroli C, et al. The Reliability of Endoscopic Biopsies in Assessing HER2 Status in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Study Comparing Biopsies with Surgical Samples. Transl Oncol. 2013;6(1):10-6doi: 10.1593/tlo.12334.
Grillo, F., Fassan, M., Ceccaroli, C., Giacometti, C., Curto, M., Zagonel, V., Ceppa, P., Nitti, D., Castoro, C., Fiocca, R., Rugge, M., & Mastracci, L. (2013). The Reliability of Endoscopic Biopsies in Assessing HER2 Status in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Study Comparing Biopsies with Surgical Samples. Translational oncology, 6(1), 10-6. https://doi.org/10.1593/tlo.12334
Grillo, Federica, et al. "The Reliability of Endoscopic Biopsies in Assessing HER2 Status in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Study Comparing Biopsies with Surgical Samples." Translational oncology vol. 6,1 (2013): 10-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1593/tlo.12334
Grillo F, Fassan M, Ceccaroli C, Giacometti C, Curto M, Zagonel V, Ceppa P, Nitti D, Castoro C, Fiocca R, Rugge M, Mastracci L. The Reliability of Endoscopic Biopsies in Assessing HER2 Status in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Study Comparing Biopsies with Surgical Samples. Transl Oncol. 2013 Feb;6(1):10-6. doi: 10.1593/tlo.12334. Epub 2013 Feb 01. PMID: 23418612; PMCID: PMC3573649.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Transl Oncol. 2013 Feb;6(1):10-6. doi: 10.1593/tlo.12334. Epub 2013 Feb 01.

The Reliability of Endoscopic Biopsies in Assessing HER2 Status in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Study Comparing Biopsies with Surgical Samples.

Translational oncology

Federica Grillo, Matteo Fassan, Chiara Ceccaroli, Cinzia Giacometti, Monica Curto, Vittorina Zagonel, Paola Ceppa, Donato Nitti, Carlo Castoro, Roberto Fiocca, Massimo Rugge, Luca Mastracci

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences (DISC), Pathology Unit, University of Genoa and IRCCS San Martino-IST University Hospital, Genoa, Italy.

PMID: 23418612 PMCID: PMC3573649 DOI: 10.1593/tlo.12334

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study is to validate the accuracy of HER2 assessment on biopsies by comparing matched biopsy/surgical material from the same patients.

METHODS: HER2 status was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in 103 cases of gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers in coupled biopsy and surgical material.

RESULT: Complete concordance between IHC and FISH results on biopsy versus surgical samples was noted in 80% and 95% of cases, respectively. At comprehensive comparison, including IHC and FISH data on biopsy and surgical samples, 89% of biopsies were predictive of HER2 status in surgical samples, whereas 11% showed variable inconsistencies. The majority of these (10 of 12 cases) showed IHC score 0/1+ on biopsy but were all IHC positive and amplified at surgery; in particular, three (3 of 35; 8.5%) IHC score 0 and four (4 of 16; 25%) IHC score 1+ cases were FISH amplified on biopsy material also, whereas the remaining three cases were FISH non-amplified on biopsy. The percentage of cases, which were FISH amplified with IHC score 1+ or 2+ on biopsies, were similar (25% and 33%, respectively) and they also shared a similar grade of amplification. These data suggest that both IHC score 1+ and 2+ on biopsy material represent "equivocal cases" that may merit further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS: The predictive value of HER2 IHC in biopsies is high. FISH analysis should be considered for IHC score 2+ and 1+ biopsy cases. Approximately 8% of cases will not be accurately predicted by biopsy evaluation.

References

  1. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Oct;18(10):2833-40 - PubMed
  2. Oncol Rep. 2006 Jan;15(1):65-71 - PubMed
  3. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2012 Jan;62(1):221-8 - PubMed
  4. Histopathology. 2012 Nov;61(5):769-76 - PubMed
  5. Oncology. 2010;78(1):26-33 - PubMed
  6. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1965;64:31-49 - PubMed
  7. Cell Oncol. 2010;32(1-2):57-65 - PubMed
  8. Histopathology. 2011 Nov;59(5):832-40 - PubMed
  9. Mol Cell Biol. 1986 Mar;6(3):955-8 - PubMed
  10. J Cancer. 2012;3:137-44 - PubMed
  11. Mod Pathol. 2000 Aug;13(8):866-73 - PubMed
  12. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999 Jul;112(1 Suppl 1):S53-67 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jan 1;25(1):118-45 - PubMed
  14. Ann Oncol. 2008 Sep;19(9):1523-9 - PubMed
  15. Cancer. 1999 May 1;85(9):1894-902 - PubMed
  16. Lancet. 2010 Aug 28;376(9742):687-97 - PubMed
  17. Histopathology. 2011 Nov;59(5):822-31 - PubMed
  18. Histopathology. 2008 Jun;52(7):797-805 - PubMed
  19. Curr Drug Targets. 2005 May;6(3):243-57 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Pathol. 2010 Sep;63(9):839-42 - PubMed
  21. Ann Surg. 2005 Jan;241(1):27-39 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Pathol. 2006 Jun;59(6):631-4 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 10;24(14):2137-50 - PubMed
  24. Histopathology. 2011 Feb;58(3):383-94 - PubMed
  25. Mod Pathol. 2007 Jan;20(1):120-9 - PubMed
  26. N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 4;349(23):2241-52 - PubMed
  27. World J Surg Oncol. 2009 Nov 09;7:83 - PubMed
  28. Pathology. 2012 Apr;44(3):216-20 - PubMed
  29. Cancer. 1977 Jun;39(6):2475-85 - PubMed
  30. N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 15;344(11):783-92 - PubMed
  31. J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(4):256-64 - PubMed
  32. Virchows Arch. 2010 Sep;457(3):299-307 - PubMed

Publication Types