Search

Whole slide imaging (WSI) technology has been used for training, teaching, researching, and remote consultation. Few studies compared HER2 expression using optical microscopy (OM) and WSI evaluations in breast carcinomas. However, no consensus has been achieved comparing both assessments. Material and methods Sections from tissue microarray containing 200 preselected invasive breast carcinomas were submitted to immunohistochemistry applying three anti-HER2 antibodies (HercepTest™, CB11, SP3) and in situ hybridization (DDISH). Slides were evaluated using OM and WSI (Pannoramic MIDI and Viewer, 3DHISTECH). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated comparing the anti-HER2 antibodies and DDISH. Results WSI and OM HER2 evaluations agreement was considered good (SP3, k = 0.80) to very good (CB11 and HercepTest™, k = 0.81). WSI evaluation led to higher sensitivity (ranging from 100 of SP3 and HercepTest™ to 97 of CB11) and lower specificity (ranging from 86.4 of SP3 to 89.4 of HercepTest™) compared to OM evaluation (sensitivity ranged from 92.1 of CB11 to 98 of SP3 and specificity ranged from 95.2 of SP3 and HercepTest™ to 97.1 of CB11 and SP3). Conclusion High agreement was achieved between WSI and OM evaluations. All three antibodies were highly sensitive and specific using both evaluations. WSI can be considered a useful tool for HER2 immunohistochemical assessment.

AimsVariability in determining HER2 status has been reported, especially, differences in sensitivity and specificity among commercially available antibodies, with false positive and false negative results. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of five anti-HER2 antibodies by immunohistochemistry (IHC), using the new dual colour brightfield in situ hybridisation (DDISH) as the gold standard, on invasive breast carcinomas (IBC) arrays.Material and methodsSerial sections from tissue microarrays (TMA) containing 200 preselected primary IBC were submitted to DDISH (VENTANA INFORM HER2 Dual ISH assay), and immunohistochemistry, using Dako A0485 and HercepTest (polyclonal), Novocastra CB11 (mouse monoclonal), NeoMarkers SP3 and Ventana 4B5 (rabbit monoclonal).ResultsFrom the initial 200 cases, 184 were assessed by DDISH and IHC. The concordance among the antibodies was considered very good (kappa statistics varied from 0.82 to 0.9). The overall concordance between IHC and DDISH ranged from 94.1% for CB11 to 96.6% for A0485. The antibodies A0485, HercepTest, SP3 and 4B5 were over 95% sensitive and specific. CB11 was the most specific antibody (97.1%). 60% (CB11) to 83.3% (SP3) of the 2+ cases showed no gene amplification by DDISH. False negative cases varied from 0.5% (A0485) to 3.8% (CB11) of the cases, and false positive from 1.6% (CB11) to 2.7% (HercepTest, SP3 and 4B5) of the 184 cases.ConclusionsThere was very good agreement among the five anti-HER2 antibodies. CB11 was the most specific antibody, but showed more false negative cases. A0485, SP3, 4B5 and HercepTest were highly sensitive and specific, but showed more false positive cases.