Her2 scores... FISH versus IHC

Options
Colt45
Colt45 Member Posts: 771

Husband who just wants to understand more about Her2...



I have read that with FISH, anything under 1.8 is negative for Her2.



Am I stating that right?



And with IHC, you have 0, 1+, 2+ and 3+.... and that 0 and 1+ are 'negative'.



Am I stating this correctly? (why on EARTH would you call it a '1+' if it's negative?--- but that's another matter)...



Who gets Herceptin? Where's the cutoff for FISH and for IHC?



What does a FISH ratio of 1.4 to 1 mean?



What kind of FISH score would be the equivalent of an IHC score of 0? Or an IHC score of 1+?

Comments

  • SpecialK
    SpecialK Member Posts: 16,486
    edited March 2013

    Generally speaking , those who "overexpress" Her2, or are 3+ on IHC or 2 to 1 ratio on FISH, get Herceptin.  Some amount of Her2 is normal, that is why registering a 1+ or 2+ are considered negative.  There is a developing school of thought that some of those who do not fit the overexpression criteria may still benefit from either Herceptin, or one of the vaccines that is in clinical trials.  I took part in the trial linked below (I am Her2+++ and received a year of Herceptin) that has just been opened to include those who do have a lower registration of HEr2, but did not meet the criteria for Herceptin.

    http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00524277

    Here is BCO's explanation:

    http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/diagnosis/her2

    Here is a good explanation, and the answer to your ratio question:

    Immunohistochemistry (Immuno-Histo-Chemistry; IHC)

    IHC is a protein-based test that is used to provide an assessment of the amount of HER2 protein receptors on the surface of the cancer cells. In HER2-positive tumors there is more than a normal amount of HER2 protein on the cell surface (i.e., there is HER2 protein “overexpression”).

    The IHC test is done by a pathologistA doctor who identifies diseases by studying cells and tissues under a microscope. in a laboratory on a sample of a tumor removed during a biopsyThe removal of cells or tissues for examination by a pathologist. The pathologist may study the tissue under a microscope or perform other tests on the cells or tissue. There are many different types of biopsy procedures. The most common types include: (1) incisional biopsy, in which only a sample of tissue is removed; (2) excisional biopsy, in which an entire lump or suspicious area is removed; and (3) needle biopsy, in which a sample of tissue or fluid is removed with a needle. When a wide needle is used, the procedure is called a core biopsy. When a thin needle is used, the procedure is called a fine-needle aspiration biopsy. , a lumpectomySurgery to remove the tumor and a small amount of normal tissue around it. or a mastectomySurgery to remove the breast (or as much of the breast tissue as possible). . The steps in the procedure are as follows:

    The scoring for an IHC test ranges from 0 to 3+.

    • Zero is HER2 negative
    • 1+ is considered HER2 negative
    • 2+ is considered a borderline or equivocal result
    • 3+ is HER2 positive

    Several potential problems may be encountered with IHC testing:

    Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH)

    FISH is a gene-based test used to determine the number of HER2 genes in the cells of the tumor. In HER2-positive breast cancer if there are too many copies of the HER2 gene, the gene is “amplified." The FISH test is done by a pathologist in a laboratory on a sample of a tumor removed during a biopsy, a lumpectomy or a mastectomy. The steps in the most commonly used procedure (Pathvysion) are as follows:

    • Breast cancer tissue is prepared for testing.
    • The sample of tumor (a thin slice) is exposed to fluorescent compounds (will glow under certain lights).
    • One fluorescent compound adheres (sticks) to the HER2 genes in a cell and another adheres to chromosome 17 in a cell.
    • When the sample is exposed to a special light, the HER2 genes and chromosome 17 light up with different colors and can be counted; a pathologist or computer then reads the prepared slide.
    • The proportion or ratio of genes to chromosomes 17 in 60 cells is determined and the average number of HER2 genes/chromosome 17 per cell is then reported.
    • The HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio in a normal, nondividing cell should be 1 to 1. One gene is on each of the 2 copies of chromosome 17. The HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio can increase up to 2 to 1 in cells during certain stages of normal cell division. An average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of less than 2 to 1 is reported as HER2 negative.
    • Tumor samples with an average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of greater than or equal to 2 to 1 (2.5 to 1, 3.2 to 1, etc.) are reported as HER2 positive.

    Another FISH procedure (INFORM) uses a similar procedure but measures only the average number of HER2 gene copies/cell; tumor samples with an average of greater than 4 HER2 gene copies per cell are considered HER2 positive.

    Problems encountered in FISH testing include the following:

    • Increased cost of FISH relative to IHC HER2 testing.
    • Scoring difficulties found with FISH testing may be associated with the specific set of cells chosen to include in the determination or tissue processing.
    • False positive or false negative HER2 test results can occur.

    NCCN Recommendations

    If appropriate quality control/assurance procedures are in place for a laboratory, either the IHC or the FISH method may be used to determine HER2 tumor status. If the laboratory does not have control/assurance procedures in place, the sample should be sent to a reference laboratory that does meet the quality control/assurance procedures.

    HER2 test results are interpreted as follows:

    • HER2 positive status is IHC 3+ or FISH positive
    • HER2 negative status is IHC 0, 1+ or FISH negative
    • A borderline IHC result of 2+ should be followed by performing a FISH test.
    • A borderline FISH result of an average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of 1.8 to 2.2 (or an average of greater than 4 to less than 6 HER2 gene copies/cell) should be followed by one of the following:
      • Counting additional cells in the tissue sample
      • Retesting with FISH
      • Performing an IHC test
  • Colt45
    Colt45 Member Posts: 771
    edited March 2013

    Thanks, SpecialK.



    A Her2 by FISH of 1.4 would then clearly by negative and thus no Herceptin?



    Even according to the 'developing school of thought'?



    Do I understand that correctly?



    Thank you.

  • SpecialK
    SpecialK Member Posts: 16,486
    edited March 2013

    colt - yes, you do - and it is important to note that you do want to overtreat with the thought that "more is better" if it is not necessary, Herceptin comes with its own set of side effects, including heart damage.  The accepted treatment guidelines mean that at the moment oncologists do not give Herceptin unless you clearly overexpress Her2.  However, being negative by Herceptin treatment standards does not necessarily preclude participation in the vaccine trial I mentioned.  The purpose of this vaccine is to prevent recurrence - the subject you were concerned about in your other thread.

    Here is also some other thread info about the developing school of thought...

    http://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/20130304

  • Colt45
    Colt45 Member Posts: 771
    edited March 2013

    Thanks again, SpecialK. My wife, as I understand, would not be a candidate for any Herceptin usage as she had DD Adriamycin (the cardio risk would preclude taking both, from what I understand).



    I just wanted to confirm that 1.4 to 1 ratio by FISH was not considered a candidate for Herceptin back when we were making Tx decisions (Dec'12). Not that it would matter now. I just have a need to understand.



    Thanks again.

  • Colt45
    Colt45 Member Posts: 771
    edited March 2013

    This whole breast cancer business is so gray.



    They tell you you're negative for this/ positive for that... But there seems to be more cutoffs in the middle of gray areas than absolutes... and what if that line gets moved----and you were on the border... And you're now on the other side of the decision tree for a particular treatment...



    The decision making is crazy. Especially for lay people to have to make.



    This is partly why I stew and just come up with more questions. There's always ( it seems) new trials that fly in the face of what was considered conventional wisdom 5 minutes ago... It scares the person who just made a decision. You know?



    But I've read it here a hundred times: you make the best decision you can with the information available at the time... And you don't look back.



  • SpecialK
    SpecialK Member Posts: 16,486
    edited March 2013

    Exactly - when I was diagnosed, which was not that long ago, the NCCN guidelines did not dictate radiation for a mastectomy with positive nodes.  I was told by both my BS and MO that I did not needs rads - I asked each of them on two separate occasions to be sure.  Lo and behold, after treatment, and the window for rads was over, the NCCN guidelines changed to include rads for my situation. I will always wonder if I should have done rads.  You are correct - we figure out the line - and then it gets moved!  Frustrating and scary - but, as far as recurrence the real stats are 0% and 100% - we just don't know which group we will be in, all we can do is play the odds and hope for the best!

  • Colt45
    Colt45 Member Posts: 771
    edited March 2013

    Yeah... And the rads decision is another one that we have to make. I honestly do not know which way to go with that.

Categories