NIH, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis (DCTD) NIH - National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute DCTD - Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis

Microarray-based determination of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptor status in breast cancer.

Author(s): Roepman P, Horlings HM, Krijgsman O, Kok M, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Bender R, Linn SC, Glas AM, van de Vijver MJ

Publication: Clin Cancer Res, 2009, Vol. 15, Page 7003-11

PubMed ID: 19887485 PubMed Review Paper? No

Purpose of Paper

The purpose of this paper was to compare estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2(HER2) status determination in breast tumors by DNA microarray and immunohistochemistry (IHC) using different scoring methods.

Conclusion of Paper

Concordance of ER, PR and HER2 status between each of three scoring methods for IHC and DNA microarray determination was high. The different scoring methods employed and the use of tissue microarrays (TMAs) instead of whole sections had no significant effects on ER, PR, or HER2 status.

Studies

  1. Study Purpose

    The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of IHC scoring method, analysis of whole sections rather than TMAs, and evaluation by IHC versus chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) on the concordance of ER, PR and HER2 status of breast tumors. Results were compared with those obtained by DNA microarray. For the tissue microarrays, 3 cores were examined per case, and ER and PR IHC positivity was defined as more than 10% of tumor cells staining (central scoring). HER2 IHC was scored on a 4 point scale with positivity defined as complete membrane staining in more than 10% of cells. HER2 CISH was used to determine HER2 status of borderline cases with positivity defined as at least 6 CISH spots.

    Summary of Findings:

    IHC results using central scoring and DNA microarray results were strongly correlated (r=0.77, 0.61, and 0.76 for ER, PR and HER2, respectively) with agreement of results in 93, 83 and 96% of cases for ER, PR and HER2 respectively. Non-concordant results for ER and PR generally arose from positive microarray results and negative immunohistochemical scoring, while the reverse was true for HER2 status. In cases that were preselected based on high concordance of IHC results between local and central scoring methods, concordance rates between DNA microarray results and IHC results in whole sections using local, central and ASCO/CAP scores were 92, 93 and 92%, respectively for ER, 84, 81, and 86%, respectively for PR, and 93, 95 and 94%, respectively for HER2. Concordance rates were similarly high between DNA microarrays and IHC staining of TMAs or whole sections. Of 11 cases with discordant IHC results between central and ASCO/CAP scoring, 5 were able to be classified after DNA microarray analysis.

    Biospecimens
    Preservative Types
    • Formalin
    Diagnoses:
    • Neoplastic - Carcinoma
    Platform:
    AnalyteTechnology Platform
    Protein Tissue microarray
    Protein Immunohistochemistry
    DNA In situ hybridization
    RNA DNA microarray
    Pre-analytical Factors:
    ClassificationPre-analytical FactorValue(s)
    Biospecimen Aliquots and Components Type of slide Tissue microarray
    Whole tissue section
    Immunohistochemistry Specific Data handling Local scoring
    Central scoring
    ASCO/CAP scoring
    Immunohistochemistry Specific Targeted peptide/protein ER
    PR
    HER2
    DNA microarray Specific Targeted nucleic acid ER
    PR
    HER2
    DNA microarray Specific Technology platform IHC

You Recently Viewed  

News and Announcements

  • April 24, 2024: Biobanking for Precision Medicine Seminar

  • Most Popular SOPs in March 2024

  • New SOPs Available

  • More...