Comparison of HER2 status determination methods in HER2 (2+) patients: Manual fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) vs. dual silver enhanced in situ hybridization (SISH)

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorPehlivanoglu, Burcin
dc.contributor.authorSerin, Gurdeniz
dc.contributor.authorYeniay, Levent
dc.contributor.authorZekioglu, Osman
dc.contributor.authorGokmen, Erhan
dc.contributor.authorOzdemir, Necmettin
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-27T10:47:45Z
dc.date.available2019-10-27T10:47:45Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractHER2 amplification has been demonstrated in 15-25% of invasive breast carcinomas and can be assessed using immunohistochemical and in situ hybridization methods. Here, we compared the accuracy of dual SISH to manual FISH in HER2 (2 +) breast carcinoma and evaluated the feasibility of dual SISH method in routine practice. Sixty HER2 (2 +) consecutive tumor samples diagnosed between January 2009 and February 2013 were selected. Demographic, histological and immunohistochemical features and FISH results were recruited from patient records and compared to dual SISH results. Nine (15%) of the 60 tumor samples were excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of interpretable SISH signals. HER2 staining percentages by immunohistochemistry differed between 20 and 80%. HER2 amplification was shown in 7 (13.7%) and 8 (15.7%) patients by FISH and SISH, respectively. Very good agreement was observed between FISH and SISH methods (kappa value: 0.92). Significant correlation was found between HER2 staining percentage and FISH positivity, in contrast to SISH positivity (p = 0.012 vs. p = 0.069). Our results are consistent with previously reported literature, indicating SISH can be used to determine HER2 status. However, preanalytical and analytical problems may cause inadequate or uncountable signals, making interpretation impossible for the pathologist and highlighting the importance of standardization and quality control programs.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2017.06.005en_US
dc.identifier.endpage40en_US
dc.identifier.issn1092-9134
dc.identifier.issn1532-8198
dc.identifier.pmid29146056en_US
dc.identifier.startpage36en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2017.06.005
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/31463
dc.identifier.volume31en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000416878500007en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Science Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAnnals of Diagnostic Pathologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectHER2 amplificationen_US
dc.subjectDual SISHen_US
dc.subjectFISHen_US
dc.subjectBreast carcinomaen_US
dc.titleComparison of HER2 status determination methods in HER2 (2+) patients: Manual fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) vs. dual silver enhanced in situ hybridization (SISH)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu