HER2/neu gene amplification heterogeneity: The significance of cells with a 3: 1 HER2/CEP17 ratio

Applied Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Morphology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 543-549

  Layfield, Lester J ^a,b   Schmidt, Robert L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WARUP Laboratories   (United States)

Author keywords

amplification; breast carcinoma; HER2 neu; heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2;

ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENE AMPLIFICATION; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

GENE AMPLIFICATION; GENES, ERBB-2; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; HUMANS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE;

EID: 84870419302     PISSN: 15412016     EISSN: 15334058     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAI.0b013e31824d04e8     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Tubbs RR, Hicks DG, Cook J, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) as primary methodology for the assessment of HER2 Status in adenocarcinoma of the breast: a single institution experience. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2007;16:207-210.
2. Owens MA, Horten BC, Da Silva MM. HER2 amplification ratios by fluorescence in situ hybridization and correlation with immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 6556 breast cancer tissues. Clin Breast Cancer. 2004;5:63-69.
3. Lal P, Salazar PA, Hudis CA, et al. HER-2 testing in breast cancer using immunohistochemical analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization: a single-institution experience of 2279 cases and comparison of dual-color and single-color scoring. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121:631-636.
4. Lewis JT, Ketterling RP, Halling KC, et al. Analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity and amplification status in breast carcinomas with equivocal (2+) HER-2 immunostaining. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124:273-281.
5. Glockner S, Buurman H, Kleeberger W, et al. Marked intratumoral heterogeneity of c-myc and cyclinD1 but not of c-erbB2 amplification in breast cancer. Lab Invest. 2002;82:1419-1426.
6. Vance GH, Barry TS, Bloom KJ, et al. College of American Pathologists. Genetic heterogeneity in HER2 testing in breast cancer: panel summary and guidelines. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:611-612.
7. Hsu CY, Li AF, Yang CF, et al. Proposal of modification for the definition of genetic heterogeneity in HER2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:162, author reply 163.
8. Schmidt RA, Dintzis SM, Allison KH. "High-ICR": a unifying data-driven reporting system for HER2 FISH analysis based on intra-tumor heterogeneity. Mod Pathol. 2010;62A:251.
9. Shafi H, Schmidt M, Bose S. Her2/neu genetic heterogeneity (GH) in breast cancer as defined by CAP guidelines correlates with negative prognostic factors. Mod Pathol. 2010;63A:252.
10. Bartlett AI, Starcyznski J, Robson T, et al. Heterogeneous HER2 gene amplification: impact on patient outcome and a clinically relevant definition. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:266-274.
11. Vanden Bempt I, Drijkoningen M, De Wolf-Peeters C. The complexity of genotypic alterations underlying HER2-positive breast cancer: an explanation for its clinical heterogeneity. Curr Opin Oncol. 2007;19:552-557.
12. Farabegoli F, Santini D, Ceccarelli C, et al. Clone heterogeneity in diploid and aneuploid breast carcinomas as detected by FISH. Cytometry. 2001;46:50-56.
13. Malowany JI, Mazurkiewicz J, Wood M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity in HER2 testing revisited: how nonuniform are "genetically heterogeneous" tumors? A study of 1550 HER2 FISH Cases. Mod Pathol. 2011;53A. Abstract 213.