Persons, Diane L.

Abstract Context. —Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2 gene amplification has been well documented and represents subclonal diversity within the tumor. The reported incidence of intratumor HER2 amplification genetic heterogeneity ranges in the literature from approximately 5% to 30%. The presence of HER2 genetic heterogeneity may increase subjectivity in HER2 interpretation by the pathologist. Objectives. —To define HER2 genetic heterogeneity and to provide practice guidelines for examining and reporting breast tumors with genetic heterogeneity for improvement of HER2 testing in breast cancer. Design. —We convened an expert panel to discuss HER2 gene amplification testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Components addressed included a definition of HER2 amplification heterogeneity, practice guidelines for examination of the tissue, and reporting criteria for this analysis. Results. —Genetic heterogeneity for amplification of HER2 gene status in invasive breast cancer is defined and guidelines established for assessing and reporting HER2 results in these cases. These guidelines are additive to and expand those published in 2007 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists. Conclusion. —Standardized methods for analysis will improve the accuracy and consistency of interpretation of HER2 gene amplification status in breast cancer.

Abstract Context. —Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a common method used to determine HER-2 status in breast cancer. Limited information is available concerning reproducibility of FISH in determining HER-2 gene amplification. Objective. —To present proficiency testing results of FISH for HER-2 conducted by the Cytogenetics Resource Committee of the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics. Design. —During the past 5 years, unstained sections from 9 invasive breast carcinomas were used for HER-2 FISH proficiency testing, allowing for comparison of FISH results among a large number of laboratories. Additional data were collected using an educational (ungraded) challenge and supplemental questions in the surveys. Results. —The number of laboratories participating in HER-2 FISH proficiency testing has increased steadily during the past 5 years (from 35 in 2000 to 139 in 2004). Reproducibility of test results among laboratories was excellent for breast tumors with low copy number (no HER-2 amplification) and for breast tumors with high copy number ( HER-2 amplification). However, there was considerable variation in interpretation of results for a tumor with low-level HER-2 amplification that was tested on 2 separate occasions. Responses to supplemental questions indicated that there was a need for consensus on the use of a separate equivocal/borderline interpretative category and the need for standardization of cutoff values used to define interpretative categories. Conclusions. —The College of American Pathologists proficiency survey programs provide useful information concerning the reproducibility of clinical testing for HER-2 by FISH and reflect clinical interpretation of HER-2 FISH analyses from laboratories across the country.

Abstract Objective.—To assess laboratory performance, use, and limitations in the joint College of American Pathologists and American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing program for laboratories performing cytogenetic tests based on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Data Sources.—Eight proficiency surveys dealing with FISH detection of microdeletions or microduplications, aneuploidy in interphase cells, gene amplification, and neoplasm-specific translocations. Participating laboratories used their own DNA probes (commercial or home-brew), hybridization methods, and analytic criteria to answer clinical questions about cases represented by slides included in the survey materials. They also described their test results according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN) and answered supplementary questions relating to their experience with the subject test systems. Data Extraction.—In addition to evaluating diagnostic accuracy, we evaluated survey use, laboratory experience, variation in methodologic approach, and the practicality of using ISCN nomenclature for describing test results. Synthesis and Conclusions.—With the exception of one challenge, at least 80% of the participants reached the correct diagnostic conclusion. In the sole exception, there was still a consensus of 91.7% of participants with the same (albeit erroneous) diagnostic conclusion. The overall outstanding performance of participating laboratories clearly shows the reliability of current FISH methods. Despite the fact that a large number of laboratories reported little or no experience with the specific test systems, the overwhelming majority performed very well. This result shows that the program's strategy of targeting classes of abnormalities (vs a single abnormality associated with a specific disease) did not put at a disadvantage participants who did not routinely perform all of the potential tests in the class. The extraordinary variation in ISCN descriptions submitted by participants showed that the existing system for human cytogenetic nomenclature is not suitable for facile communication of FISH test results.

Context.— Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and brightfield in situ hybridization (ISH) are 2 clinically approved laboratory methods for detecting ERBB2 (HER2) amplification in breast cancer. Objective.— To compare the performance of FISH and brightfield ISH on proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. Design.— Retrospective review was performed on 70 tissue core samples in 7 separate proficiency testing surveys conducted between 2009 and 2013. Results.— The samples included 13 consensus-amplified tissue cores, 53 consensus-nonamplified cores, and 4 cores that did not reach consensus for FISH and/or brightfield ISH. There were 2552 individual responses for FISH and 1871 individual responses for brightfield ISH. Consensus response rates were comparable for FISH (2474 of 2524; 98.0%) and brightfield ISH (2135 of 2189; 97.5%). The FISH analysis yielded an average HER2 copy number per cell that was significantly higher (by 2.86; P = .02) compared with brightfield ISH for amplified cores. For nonamplified cores, FISH yielded slightly, but not significantly, higher (by 0.17; P = .10) HER2 copy numbers per cell. There was no significant difference in the average HER2 to control ratio for either consensus-amplified or consensus-nonamplified cores. Participants reported “unable to analyze” more frequently for brightfield ISH (244 of 2453; 9.9%) than they did for FISH (160 of 2684; 6.0%). Conclusions.— Our study indicates a high concordance rate in proficiency testing surveys, with some significant differences noted in the technical performance of these assays. In borderline cases, updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists cutoff thresholds that place greater emphasis on HER2 copy number per cell could accentuate those differences between FISH and brightfield ISH.