Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the reliability of novel brightfield microscopy-based dual in situ hybridization (BDISH) methods for frontline HER2 status analysis in selected suboptimally preserved breast cancer tissue samples reflecting of the worst scenario in a community. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 320 morphologically poorly preserved breast invasive ductal carcinomas from the archives of 2 tertiary institutions in Brazil were selected for a tissue microarray-based analysis. 4B5 antibody was used for immunohistochemistry. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), DuoCISH, ZytoDot CISH, and silver in situ hybridization (SISH) were performed and compared. The highest agreement was observed between SISH and FISH. In addition, SISH was easier to assess in both amplified and nonamplified cases when compared with the other chromogenic methods, due to the sharpness of its dots. DuoCISH produced false-positive results, associated with thicker ill-defined dots, causing poor distinction between nonamplification and low amplification. ZytoDot CISH showed lower sensitivity, with increased frequency of false-positive results. CONCLUSIONS: SISH is the most reliable of the BDISH methods, with sensitivity and specificity highly comparable with FISH. It is also less deleterious than other BDISH methods, producing signals that were more distinct and therefore more readily analyzable even in poorly preserved tissue.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1489-1496 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | American Journal of Surgical Pathology |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2012 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- breast cancer
- HER2
- in situ hybridization
- SISH
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Anatomy
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine
- Surgery
Cite this
Evaluation of reliability of FISH versus brightfield dual-probe in situ hybridization (BDISH) for frontline assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer samples in a community setting : Influence of poor tissue preservation. / Schiavon, Beatriz N.; Jasani, Bharat; De Brot, Louise; Vassallo, José; Damascena, Aline; Cirullo-Neto, Julio; Ivanildo Neves, José; Augusto Soares, Fernando; Gobbi, Helenice; Malagoli Rocha, Rafael.
In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 36, No. 10, 10.2012, p. 1489-1496.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of reliability of FISH versus brightfield dual-probe in situ hybridization (BDISH) for frontline assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer samples in a community setting
T2 - Influence of poor tissue preservation
AU - Schiavon, Beatriz N.
AU - Jasani, Bharat
AU - De Brot, Louise
AU - Vassallo, José
AU - Damascena, Aline
AU - Cirullo-Neto, Julio
AU - Ivanildo Neves, José
AU - Augusto Soares, Fernando
AU - Gobbi, Helenice
AU - Malagoli Rocha, Rafael
PY - 2012/10
Y1 - 2012/10
N2 - AIMS: To evaluate the reliability of novel brightfield microscopy-based dual in situ hybridization (BDISH) methods for frontline HER2 status analysis in selected suboptimally preserved breast cancer tissue samples reflecting of the worst scenario in a community. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 320 morphologically poorly preserved breast invasive ductal carcinomas from the archives of 2 tertiary institutions in Brazil were selected for a tissue microarray-based analysis. 4B5 antibody was used for immunohistochemistry. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), DuoCISH, ZytoDot CISH, and silver in situ hybridization (SISH) were performed and compared. The highest agreement was observed between SISH and FISH. In addition, SISH was easier to assess in both amplified and nonamplified cases when compared with the other chromogenic methods, due to the sharpness of its dots. DuoCISH produced false-positive results, associated with thicker ill-defined dots, causing poor distinction between nonamplification and low amplification. ZytoDot CISH showed lower sensitivity, with increased frequency of false-positive results. CONCLUSIONS: SISH is the most reliable of the BDISH methods, with sensitivity and specificity highly comparable with FISH. It is also less deleterious than other BDISH methods, producing signals that were more distinct and therefore more readily analyzable even in poorly preserved tissue.
AB - AIMS: To evaluate the reliability of novel brightfield microscopy-based dual in situ hybridization (BDISH) methods for frontline HER2 status analysis in selected suboptimally preserved breast cancer tissue samples reflecting of the worst scenario in a community. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 320 morphologically poorly preserved breast invasive ductal carcinomas from the archives of 2 tertiary institutions in Brazil were selected for a tissue microarray-based analysis. 4B5 antibody was used for immunohistochemistry. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), DuoCISH, ZytoDot CISH, and silver in situ hybridization (SISH) were performed and compared. The highest agreement was observed between SISH and FISH. In addition, SISH was easier to assess in both amplified and nonamplified cases when compared with the other chromogenic methods, due to the sharpness of its dots. DuoCISH produced false-positive results, associated with thicker ill-defined dots, causing poor distinction between nonamplification and low amplification. ZytoDot CISH showed lower sensitivity, with increased frequency of false-positive results. CONCLUSIONS: SISH is the most reliable of the BDISH methods, with sensitivity and specificity highly comparable with FISH. It is also less deleterious than other BDISH methods, producing signals that were more distinct and therefore more readily analyzable even in poorly preserved tissue.
KW - breast cancer
KW - HER2
KW - in situ hybridization
KW - SISH
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866617479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866617479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182635987
DO - 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182635987
M3 - Article
C2 - 22982892
AN - SCOPUS:84866617479
VL - 36
SP - 1489
EP - 1496
JO - American Journal of Surgical Pathology
JF - American Journal of Surgical Pathology
SN - 0147-5185
IS - 10
ER -