Re: Interpretation of HER-2 FISH Results
Dear Bob:
Actually, the case was sent to us for consultation; I am not sure if we
qualify as "Big League", but I think we can certainly "play ball". The
patient has an invasive tubular carcinoma, nuclear grade I, histologic
grade I (ER+/PR+) along with the extensive DCIS that showed 3+ HER-2/neu
protein overexpression.
R. Cartun
>>> 05/02/02 03:01PM >>>
Richard Cartun notes:
>>The topic of "who should interpret HER-2 FISH results" has recently
been
discussed on Histonet. - I just finished looking at a case of breast CA
where
the invasive mammary duct CA was negative for HER-2/neu protein
overexpression, but the ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) was 3+
positive. It
was a very impressive specimen; the HER-2 positive DCIS surrounded the
small
focus of HER-2 negative invasive tumor. As you may already know,
determination of ER/PR/HER-2 status should be performed on invasive
tumor;
not carcinoma in-situ. I don't have a problem with non-MD's doing the
interpretation of the FISH results (keep in mind that I am a Ph.D.),
but
whoever does the interpretation must know which cells to
evaluate. By all means, if there are questions regarding the
interpretation
of the FISH slides, go to the pathologist who signed-out the case and
ask
them to identify the tumor for evaluation. I requested FISH on this
specimen
for HER-2/neu gene amplification for academic purposes. Let's see if
the
correct tumor cells are evaluated!<<
This result doesn't surprise me, since other adverse prognostic
criteria
(starting with nuclear morphology) are often more striking in DCIS than
in
invasive cancer. I'm not surprised that HER-2 FISH follows this path
also.
I'm more concerned about >>the small focus of HER-2 negative invasive
tumor<<. The big league breast pathologists - particularly David L.
Page at
Vanderbilt - are getting more and more reluctant to call such small
foci near
high-grade DCIS invasive cancer, and this case may need to be sent out
for
consultation.
I'm not surprised to see FISH results interpreted by non-pathologists,
since
in general new technology in pathology isn't done by pathologists. The
question the next generation will have to deal with is whether the
whole
procedure should be done by non-pathologists. Fortunately, I shall have
been
gathered to my grandfathers by then.
Bob Richmond
Samurai Pathologist
Knoxville TN
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>