4.6 Article

HER2 status in gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinomas assessed by two rabbit monoclonal antibodies (SP3 and 4B5) and two in situ hybridization methods (FISH and SISH)

期刊

HISTOPATHOLOGY
卷 58, 期 3, 页码 383-394

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03760.x

关键词

Anti-HER2 therapy; gastric adenocarcinoma; HER2; immunohistochemistry; in situ hybridization; oesophageal adenocarcinoma

资金

  1. Roche b.v., Woerden, the Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: HER2 gene amplification has been detected in 10-20% of gastric adenocarcinomas. In view of the recently demonstrated clinical benefit of the anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) drug trastuzumab in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, reliable HER2 testing is of key importance. The aim of this study was to examine HER2 status in gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinomas comparing SP3 and 4B5 immunohistochemistry (IHC) with dual probe HER2 [fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and silver in situ hybridization (SISH)]. Methods and results: IHC and SISH were carried out on biopsy specimens of 146 patients with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and stomach. All SP3-IHC-positive cases and 91% of 4B5-IHC-positive cases were amplified. Sensitivity of SP3-IHC-positivity and 4B5-IHC-positivity for amplification was 77% and 96%, respectively. Results of FISH performed in 42 cases were identical to SISH. Amplification was heterogeneous in 73% of the adenocarcinomas; 24% of the oesophago-gastric carcinomas and 7% of distal stomach tumours were amplified. Conclusions: HER2-positivity is present in a significant proportion of oesophago-gastric adenocarcinomas (24%), but at a lower rate in the distal stomach (7%). Sensitivity for amplification is higher with 4B5 IHC than with SP3. FISH and SISH yield identical results, but assessment is much easier with SISH. Our findings provide important guidance for HER2-testing in gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinomas for patients in whom anti-HER2 treatment is considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据