Evaluation of new monoclonal antibodies in detection of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Her2 protein expression in breast carcinoma cell block sections using conventional microscopy and quantitative image analysis

Accurate assessment of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and Her2 status of breast carcinomas is critical for predicting response to systemic therapies. Recently, developed rabbit monoclonal antibodies (RMab) are reported to have higher sensitivity than murine monoclonal antibodies (Mab). This study compares RMabs against FDA‐approved Mab (FMab) in breast carcinoma cell block sections using visual and image quantification. Cell blocks from 52 breast cancers were studied. Immunohistochemistry using RMab (ER, PR, and Her2) was compared with FMabs (ER, PR, Dako) and HercepTest (HerFDA). Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) was used as a reference standard for Her2. Slides were later scanned and reanalyzed with an automated cellular imaging system (ACIS III, Dako). Frequency of ER (38.5% vs. 36.5% for visual; 55.8% vs. 57.7% for image) and PR (28.8% vs. 36.5% for visual; 50% vs. 51.9% for image), and concordance (overall agreement is 71.2% and 75% for visual and image ER; and 84.6% and 59.6% for visual and image PR) were similar for both FMab and RMab, respectively. Overall agreement (53.8% vs. 77.1% for visual and image detection, respectively, using HerFDA and RMab) is poor to moderate for Her2. Visual Her2 (RMab) has the highest concordance (94.1%), and visual HerFDA has the lowest concordance (35.3%) with FISH. ER and PR analysis (FMab vs. RMab) are almost comparable using both detection methods with good overall agreement. For Her2 overexpression, RMab proved to be superior to HerFDA and showed excellent agreement with FISH results with both quantitative detection methods. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  A. D. Dei Tos,et al.  Rabbit monoclonal antibodies: a comparative study between a novel category of immunoreagents and the corresponding mouse monoclonal antibodies. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[2]  N. Sneige,et al.  HER-2/neu gene amplification compared with HER-2/neu protein overexpression and interobserver reproducibility in invasive breast carcinoma. , 2000, American journal of clinical pathology.

[3]  M. Untch,et al.  Her-2/neu analysis in archival tissue samples of human breast cancer: comparison of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  Zhida Huang,et al.  Development of New Rabbit Monoclonal Antibody to Progesterone Receptor (Clone SP2): No Heat Pretreatment but Effective for Paraffin Section Immunohistochemistry , 2006, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[5]  K. Bloom,et al.  Assessment of HER-2/Neu Status by Immunohistochemistry and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Mammary Paget Disease and Underlying Carcinoma , 2003, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[6]  L. Goldstein,et al.  Automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma does not differ from expert pathologist scoring: a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases , 2008, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[7]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. , 2007, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[8]  A. Nassar,et al.  Image cytometric validation of breast carcinoma markers (ER, HER2 and MIB-1) using tissue microarrays: rabbit monoclonal vs. FDA-approved antibodies. , 2010, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[9]  P. Thomas,et al.  Comparison of immunohistochemistry by automated cellular imaging system (ACIS) versus fluorescence in‐situ hybridization in the evaluation of HER‐2/neu expression in primary breast carcinoma , 2006, Histopathology.

[10]  G. Szekeres,et al.  Development of New Rabbit Monoclonal Antibody to Estrogen Receptor: Immunohistochemical Assessment on Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Sections , 2005, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[11]  K. Edmiston,et al.  HER-2 Status in Breast Cancer: Correlation of Gene Amplification by FISH With Immunohistochemistry Expression Using Advanced Cellular Imaging System , 2006, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[12]  K. Bloom,et al.  Enhanced accuracy and reliability of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical scoring using digital microscopy. , 2004, American journal of clinical pathology.

[13]  A. Gown,et al.  Accuracy and precision in HER2/neu testing in breast cancer: are we there yet? , 2004, Human pathology.

[14]  G. McIntosh,et al.  The First Quantitative Comparison of Immunohistochemical Rabbit and Mouse Monoclonal Antibody Affinities Using Biacore Analysis , 2007 .

[15]  Karen A Gelmon,et al.  Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  L. Goldstein,et al.  HER-2 testing in breast cancer using parallel tissue-based methods. , 2004, JAMA.

[17]  A. D. Tos,et al.  Rabbit Monoclonal Antibodies , 2005 .

[18]  T. Grogan,et al.  A New Rabbit Monoclonal Antibody (4B5) for the Immunohistochemical (IHC) Determination of the HER2 Status in Breast Cancer: Comparison With CB11, Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH), and Interlaboratory Reproducibility , 2007, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.