The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility

The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility

Diagnostic value of IHC and FISH methods for HER2 gene amplification detection in paraffin embedded blocks of breast cancer

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Seyed Ahmad Aleyasin 1
Esmaeil Akbari 2
Fatemeh Saadati 3
1 Associate professor, Department of Medical Genetic, National Institute of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor, Department of Surgery, Cancer Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3 PhD student in Molecular Genetic, National Institute of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Tehran, Iran.
10.22038/ijogi.2023.21644
Abstract
Introduction: Breast cancer is the leading cause of malignancy related deaths in women worldwide. In 20%-30% of breast cancers, HER2 gene amplification or overexpression is observed. Determination of HER2 amplification is performed mainly by IHC technique to measure its protein expression on the cell surface and by FISH to check gene amplification. This study was aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of IHC in comparison to the FISH method for detection of HER2 gene amplification.
Methods: In this study which was performed in 2020, 44 paraffin embedded breast carcinoma tissues belonging to women with breast cancer which have been already examined with IHC technique have been analyzed using FISH technique to determine HER2+ overexpression. Data were analyzed using GraphPad (Anova ver8) software. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Comparison of IHC results with FISH represented 16% false positive and 9% false negative, therefore the sensitivity of IHC for identifying of HER2+ the meaning of true positive was equal to 66.6% and the specificity of IHC in determining true negatives was equal to 78.1%. The results showed that IHC has many errors.
Conclusion: The confidence level of positive results and negative results was equal to 53.3% and 86.2%, respectively. Therefore, FISH method should be used as an alternative method in conjunction with IHC.
Keywords
Breast cancer
FISH
HER2+
IHC
  1. Lei S, Zheng R, Zhang S, Wang S, Chen R, Sun K, et al. Global patterns of breast cancer incidence and mortality: A population‐based cancer registry data analysis from 2000 to 2020. Cancer Communications 2021; 41(11):1183-94.
  2. Alizadeh M, Ghojazadeh M, Piri R, Mirza-Aghazadeh-Attari M, Mohammadi S, Naghavi-Behzad M. Age at Diagnosis of Breast Cancer in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Iran J Public Health 2021; 50(8):1564-76.
  3. Maadi H, Soheilifar MH, Choi WS, Moshtaghian A, Wang Z. Trastuzumab mechanism of action; 20 years of research to unravel a dilemma. Cancers 2021; 13(14):3540.
  4. Marchiò C, Annaratone L, Marques A, Casorzo L, Berrino E, Sapino A. Evolving concepts in HER2 evaluation in breast cancer: Heterogeneity, HER2-low carcinomas and beyond. InSeminars in cancer biology 2021; 72:123-35.
  5. Ali S, Hendry J, Le D, Mondal PK, Sami A, Chalchal H, et al. Efficacy of adjuvant trastuzumab in women with HER2-positive T1a or bN0M0 breast cancer: a population-based cohort study. Scientific Reports 2022; 12(1):1-8.
  6. Thorat MA, Levey PM, Jones JL, Pinder SE, Bundred NJ, Fentiman IS, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of HER2 expression in ductal carcinoma in situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS Randomized Trial. Clinical Cancer Research 2021; 27(19):5317-24.
  7. El-Gamal MI, Mewafi NH, Abdelmotteleb NE, Emara MA, Tarazi H, Sbenati RM, et al. A review of HER4 (ErbB4) kinase, its impact on cancer, and its inhibitors. Molecules 2021; 26(23):7376.
  8. Furrer D, Sanschagrin F, Jacob S, Diorio C. Advantages and disadvantages of technologies for HER2 testing in breast cancer specimens. American journal of clinical pathology 2015; 144(5):686-703.
  9. Ahn S, Woo JW, Lee K, Park SY. HER2 status in breast cancer: changes in guidelines and complicating factors for interpretation. Journal of pathology and translational medicine 2020; 54(1):34-44.
  10. Theodosiou Z, Kasampalidis IN, Livanos G, Zervakis M, Pitas I, Lyroudia K. Automated analysis of FISH and immunohistochemistry images: a review. Cytometry Part A: The Journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology 2007; 71(7):439-50.
  11. Gremel G, Grannas K, Sutton LA, Pontén F, Zieba A. In situ protein detection for companion diagnostics. Frontiers in Oncology 2013; 3:271.
  12. Chao WR, Lee MY, Ruan A, Sheng HP, Hsu JD, Han CP, et al. Assessment of HER2 status using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques in mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer: a comprehensive comparison between ToGA biopsy method and ToGA surgical specimen method. PloS one 2015; 10(11):e0142135.
  13. Kobayashi M, Ooi A, Oda Y, Nakanishi I. Protein overexpression and gene amplification of c-erbB-2 in breast carcinomas: a comparative study of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. Human pathology 2002; 33(1):21-8.
  14. Lebeau A, Deimling D, Kaltz C, Sendelhofert A, Iff A, Luthardt B, et al. Her-2/neu analysis in archival tissue samples of human breast cancer: comparison of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2001; 19(2):354-63.
  15. Bankfalvi A, Simon R, Brandt B, Bürger H, Vollmer I, Dockhorn‐Dworniczak B, et al. Comparative methodological analysis of erbB‐2/HER‐2 gene dosage, chromosomal copy number and protein overexpression in breast carcinoma tissues for diagnostic use. Histopathology 2000; 37(5):411-9.
  16. Gancberg D, Lespagnard L, Rouas G, Paesmans M, Piccart M, Di Leo A, et al. Sensitivity of HER-2/neu antibodies in archival tissue samples of invasive breast carcinomas: correlation with oncogene amplification in 160 cases. American journal of clinical pathology 2000; 113(5):675-82.
  17. Thomson TA, Hayes MM, Spinelli JJ, Hilland E, Sawrenko C, Phillips D, et al. HER-2/neu in breast cancer: interobserver variability and performance of immunohistochemistry with 4 antibodies compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization. Modern Pathology 2001; 14(11):1079-86.
  18. Bartlett JM, Going JJ, Mallon EA, Watters AD, Reeves JR, Stanton P, et al. Evaluating HER2 amplification and overexpression in breast cancer. The Journal of Pathology: A Journal of the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2001; 195(4):422-8.
  19. Garbar C, Savoye AM, Mascaux C, Brabencova E, Curé H. The human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 screening tests for breast cancer suggested by the new updated recommendation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists will involve a rise of the in-situ hybridization tests for the European laboratories of pathology. International Scholarly Research Notices 2014; 2014.
  20. Hwang HC, Gown AM. Evaluation of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) gene status in human breast cancer formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). In: Cao J. (eds) Breast Cancer. Methods in Molecular Biology 2016; 1406:61-70. Humana Press, New York, NY.
  21. Press OA, Guzman R, Cervantes M, Santiago A, Press MF. Characterization of HER2 status by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC).  In: Day C. (eds) Histopathology. Methods in Molecular Biology 2014; 1180: 181-207. Humana Press, New York, NY.
  22. Makroo RN, Chowdhry M, Kumar M, Srivastava P, Tyagi R, Bhadauria P, et al. Correlation between HER2 gene amplification and protein overexpression through fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry in breast carcinoma patients. Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology 2012; 55(4):481.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 25, Issue 11
January 2023
Pages 1-7