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

Proficiency testing of immunohistochemical biomarker assays in breast cancer.

Author(s): von Wasielewski R, Hasselmann S, Rüschoff J, Fisseler-Eckhoff A, Kreipe H

Publication: Virchows Arch, 2008, Vol. 453, Page 537-43

PubMed ID: 18958494 PubMed Review Paper? No

Purpose of Paper

The purpose of this paper was to determine the effects of biomarker level and testing laboratory on the determination of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast tumors.

Conclusion of Paper

There was a strong interobserver agreement for ER, PR and HER2 status for a single stained section of a TMA containing breast cancer specimens, regardless of scores. However, accurate assignment of high-expressing ER, PR, or HER2 was achieved much more often than correct assignment of low-expression or equivocal cases. Over the 4 years of the study and with repeat participation, accuracy improved for identification of case status.

Studies

  1. Study Purpose

    The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of biomarker level, observer and testing laboratory on the determination of ER, PR and HER2 in breast tumors using tissue microarrays. Allred scores were determined for ER and PR, and cases were separated into negative, low, medium, or high expression based on the Allred score. HER2 staining was assigned a score of 0-3. Each of 4 TMAs contained 20-24 cases and was evaluated by 142 laboratories. Fixation method was unspecified but assumed to be formalin.

    Summary of Findings:

    A strong agreement was found between pathologists and reviewers with interobserver kappa scores of 0.84, 0.81, and 0.86 for ER, PR and HER2, respectively, for a single section of one TMA. Further, interobserver agreement was not influenced by score. Reproducible detection of high-expressing ER and PR was achieved by 86% of participants, and more than 92% of participants accurately detected HER2 with a score of 3+, but low expressing ER and PR were only correctly assigned by 61 and 75% of laboratories, respectively, and equivocal HER2 was only scored properly in 41% of laboratories. Over the 4 years of the study, accuracy improved for identification of low expressing and equivocal cases but still lagged behind proper identification of high-expressing cases. Repeat participation also increased performance (p<0.001) with 10.8%, 33.1%, and 24.9% improvements in proper assignment of low-expressing or equivocal cases for ER, PR and HER2, respectively.

    Biospecimens
    Preservative Types
    • Formalin
    Diagnoses:
    • Neoplastic - Carcinoma
    Platform:
    AnalyteTechnology Platform
    Protein Immunohistochemistry
    Protein Tissue microarray
    Pre-analytical Factors:
    ClassificationPre-analytical FactorValue(s)
    Preaquisition Biomarker level ER negative
    Low-expressing ER
    Medium-expressing ER
    High-expressing ER
    PR negative
    Low-expressing PR
    Medium-expressing PR
    High-expressing PR
    HER2 negative
    HER2 1+
    HER2 2+
    HER2 3+
    Biospecimen Acquisition Time of biospecimen collection 2003
    2004
    2005
    2006
    Immunohistochemistry Specific Targeted peptide/protein ER
    PR
    HER2

You Recently Viewed  

News and Announcements

  • April 24, 2024: Biobanking for Precision Medicine Seminar

  • Most Popular SOPs in March 2024

  • New SOPs Available

  • More...