Chromogenic In Situ Hybridisation Test for Breast Cancer Patients with Equivocal IHC Results - a Study from Iran

  • Mehrazma, Mitra (Oncopathology Research Center and Department of Pathology, Iran University of Medical sciences) ;
  • Kalantari, Elham (Oncopathology Research Center, Iran University of Medical sciences) ;
  • Rezvani, Hamid (Department of Oncology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Bahar, Babak (Department of Oncology, Shariati Hospital Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Basi, Ali (Department of Oncology, GILDRC, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical sciences) ;
  • Razavi, Seyed Mohsen (Department of Oncology, GILDRC, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical sciences) ;
  • Rakhshani, Nasser (Department of Pathology, GILDRC, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical sciences)
  • Published : 2015.12.03


Background: HER2/neu overexpression on cell membranes of breast cancer cells is due to HER2/neu gene amplification and it is important to identify potential candidates for anti HER2 therapy with trastuzumab. IHC, FISH and CISH are standard FDA approved assays currently used to determine HER2 status in routine practice. The aim of this study was to determine HER2 gene amplification, using the CISH method in breast carcinoma samples which had IHC +2 reactions. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted from 2008-2010 using 334 consecutive breast carcinoma samples referred from local laboratories to Mehr Hospital. CISH assays were performed for all cases, and IHC tests were also done for determining efficacy and accuracy of local labs. HER2 status in local IHC tests was compared with central IHC and CISH results. Results: Of 334 breast cancer patients, 16 were negative for HER2 IHC (0, +1), 201 cases were equivocal (+2), and 31 positive (+3). Of 334 referral cases, 88 were CISH positive (26.3%) and 246 were CISH negative (73.7%). Of 201 IHC +2 cases, HER2 gene amplification was observed in 42 cases (kappa: 0.42). A 29.9% concordance was found between local IHC and central IHC. Sensitivity and specificity of local IHC were 90% and 53.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Low accuracy of IHC results in local labs was associated with the following factors: using former FDA-approved criteria for HER2 interpretation, utilizing non-validated kits, and lack of any quality assurance program. Therefore, following the new 2014 ASCO/CAP guideline and comprehensive quality assurance should be implemented to ensure accuracy of HER2 testing.


Supported by : Tehran university of Medical sciences, Mehr Hospital


  1. Ariga R, Zarif A, Korasick J, et al (2005). Correlation of her-2/ neu gene amplification with other prognostic and predictive factors in female breast carcinoma. Breast J, 11, 278-80.
  2. Arnould L, Denoux Y, MacGrogan G, et al (2003). Agreement between chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) and FISH in the determination of HER2 status in breast cancer. British J Cancer, 88, 1587-91.
  3. Bhargava R, Lal P, Chen B (2005). Chromogenic in situ hybridization for the detection of her-2/neu gene amplification in breast cancer with an emphasis on tumors with borderline and low-level amplification does it measure up to fluorescence in situ hybridization? American J Clinical Pathol, 123, 237-43.
  4. Bilancia D, Rosati G, Dinota A, et al (2007). Lapatinib in breast cancer. Ann Oncol, 18, 26-30.
  5. Chang E, Lee A, Lee E, et al (2004). HER-2/neu oncogene amplification by chromogenic in situ hybridization in 130 breast cancers using tissue microarray and clinical follow-up studies. J Korean Med Sci, 19, 390-6.
  6. Dandachi N, Dietze O, Hauser-Kronberger C (2002). Chromogenic in situ hybridization: a novel approach to a practical and sensitive method for the detection of HER2 oncogene in archival human breast carcinoma. Laboratory Investigat, 82, 1007-14.
  7. Farshid G, Armes JE, Bell R, et al (2010). Establishment of the Australian in situ hybridization program for the assessment of HER2 amplification in breast cancer: a model for the introduction of new biomarkers into clinical practice. Diagnostic Molecular Pathol, 19, 187-93.
  8. Ferrero-Pous M, Hacene K, Bouchet C, et al (2000). Relationship between c-erbB-2 and other tumor characteristics in breast cancer prognosis. Clinical Cancer Res, 6, 4745-54.
  9. Gupta D, Middleton LP, Whitaker MJ, et al (2003). Comparison of fluorescence and chromogenic in situ hybridization for detection of HER-2/neu oncogene in breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol, 119, 381-7.
  10. Huang H, Neven P, Drijkoningen M, et al (2005). Association between tumour characteristics and HER-2/neu by immunohistochemistry in 1362 women with primary operable breast cancer. J Clin Pathol, 58, 611-6.
  11. Ivkovic-Kapicl T, Knezevic-Usaj S, Panjkovic M, et al (2007). HER-2/neu overexpression in invasive ductal breast cancer: An association with other prognostic and predictive factors. Arch Oncol, 15, 15-8.
  12. Kakar S, Puangsuvan N, Stevens JM, et al (2000). HER-2/neu assessment in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization: comparison of results and correlation with survival. Molecular Diagnosis, 5, 199-207.
  13. Kumamoto H, Sasano H, Taniguchi T, et al (2001). Chromogenic in situ hybridization analysis of HER-2/neu status in breast carcinoma: Application in screening of patients for trastuzumab ($Herceptin^{(R)}$) therapy. Pathol International, 51, 579-84.
  14. Laakso M, Tanner M, Isola J (2006). Dual-colour chromogenic in situ hybridization for testing of HER-2 oncogene amplification in archival breast tumours. J Pathol, 210, 3-9.
  15. Lan C, Liu JM, Liu TW, et al (2005). erb-b2 amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization in breast cancer specimens read as 2+ in immunohistochemical analysis. Am J Clin Pathol, 124, 97-102.
  16. Madrid MA, Lo RW (2004). Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH): a novel alternative in screening archival breast cancer tissue samples for HER-2/neu status. Breast Cancer Res, 6, 593-600.
  17. Mayr D, Heim S, Weyrauch K, et al (2009). Chromogenic in situ hybridization for Her-2/neu-oncogene in breast cancer: comparison of a new dual-colour chromogenic in situ hybridization with immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Histopathol, 55, 716-23.
  18. O'Malley FP, Thomson T, Julian J, et al (2008). HER2 testing in a population-based study of patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 132, 61-5.
  19. Park K, Kim J, Lim S, et al (2003). Comparing fluorescence in situ hybridization and chromogenic in situ hybridization methods to determine the HER2/neu status in primary breast carcinoma using tissue microarray. Modern Pathol, 16, 937-43.
  20. Piccart M, Mano M, Lohrisch C, et al (2002). Herceptin for the treatment of breast cancer: what we know-and what we have yet to learn. Cancer Futures, 1.
  21. Reddy JC, Reimann JD, Anderson SM, et al (2006). Concordance between central and local laboratory HER2 testing from a community-based clinical study. Clinical Breast Cancer, 7, 153-7.
  22. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al (2001). Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. New England J Med, 344, 783-92.
  23. Tanner M, Gancberg D, Di Leo A, et al (2000). Chromogenic in situ hybridization: a practical alternative for fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in archival breast cancer samples. Am J pathol, 157, 1467-72.
  24. Thomson TA, Hayes MM, Spinelli JJ, et al (2001). HER-2/neu in breast cancer: interobserver variability and performance of immunohistochemistry with 4 antibodies compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization. Modern Pathol, 14, 1079-86.
  25. Vera-Roman JM, Rubio-Martinez LA (2004). Comparative assays for the HER-2/neu oncogene status in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 128, 627-33.
  26. Vogel UF (2010). Confirmation of a low HER2 positivity rate of breast carcinomas-limitations of immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. Diagn Pathol, 5, 16.
  27. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Hicks DG, et al (2013). Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: american society of clinical oncology/college of american pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol, 31, 3997-4013.
  28. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Schwartz JN, et al (2006). American society of clinical oncology/college of american pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 25, 118-45.
  29. Yarden Y, Baselga J, Miles D (2004). Molecular approach to breast cancer treatment. seminars in oncology, Elsevier, 6-13.
  30. Zhao J, Wu R, Au A, et al (2002). Determination of HER2 gene amplification by chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) in archival breast carcinoma. Modern Pathol, 15, 657-65.

Cited by

  1. Fluorescence in-situ hybridization versus chromogenic in-situ hybridization in evaluating HER2 status in breast cancer by adopting tissue microarray technique vol.37, pp.1, 2017,