Her2 immunohistochemical evaluation by traditional microscopy and by digital analysis, and the consequences for FISH testing

AbstractAimHer2 protein is the key marker determining the choice of Herceptin therapy after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Its evaluation is made in most laboratories by immunohistochemistry, and interpreted by a pathologist using an optical microscope, a process subject to inter-observer variability, particularly for samples scored as equivocal (2+). Software analysis products have been introduced, seeking to reduce this variability. In this study, we compared the results of both traditional evaluation and a specific software package (VISIA Imaging) to those from fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH).Materials and methodsWe selected 176 cases of invasive breast cancer sampled during 2012–2014 that were classified as equivocal after evaluation of Her2 immunohistochemistry, and that were also evaluated by FISH. Each tissue slide was scanned with a digital D-Sight Fluo 2.0 microscope and analysed with VISIA Imaging S.r.l. software. The final results were categorised as follows: negative (0–1+), equivocal (2+), or positive (3+). Then each result was compared to that obtained by FISH.ResultThe digital method confirmed 85 samples (48.3%) as equivocal (2+), while 23 (15.1%) were reclassified as negative (1+) and 44 (28.9%) as positive (3+). Of the 176 cases, 24 (13.6%) were not suitable for digital analysis (inadequate). Of 67 reclassified cases (1+ or 3+), 62 were in agreement with FISH results (concordance rate 92.5%). The sensitivity and specificity of the digital method were 100% and 82%, respectively.ConclusionThe application of this analysis software led to an improvement in the interpretation of cases classified as equivocal, decreasing the need for FISH and increasing diagnostic certainty