Browsing by Author "Milentijevic, Maja (7801549028)"

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the immunohistochemistry and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) inter-laboratory consensus between national pathology laboratories in Serbia. Methods: This study was conducted between 2013 and 2016. In 2013, HER2 results were evaluated using two sets of four different breast cancer specimens in five laboratories. A total of 20 immunohistochemistry and 20 CISH cases were tested. In 2014, there were 6 testing rounds, and a total of 24 specimens were analyzed, whereas in 2015 and 2016, seven testing rounds were conducted, with four additional cases (i.e. a total of 28 specimens). In 2014, 2015 and 2016, all institutions performed immunohistochemical analysis only. Results: We found discrepancies in HER2 immunohistochemical (IHC) results in all four surveys. IHC testing resulted in diagnostic discordance between participating centers in two (2/17) cases in 2013, two (2/24) in 2014, four (4/27) cases in 2015 and three cases (3/27) in 2016. The overall agreement among the centers was 79%, 85.5%, 83.5% and 89.4%, respectively. For CISH analyses, the results for 16 (84.2%) of 19 samples were consistent for all participants. Three results were found to be discordant, indicating a misdiagnosis rate of 15.8%. In all the discrepant cases, interinstitutional discordances were related to technical and evaluation issues. Conclusions: Our study highlights the difficulty encountered during HER2 testing using immunohistochemistry and CISH. This also emphasizes the need for rigorous quality control procedures for specimen preparation and analysis. © 2019 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the immunohistochemistry and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) inter-laboratory consensus between national pathology laboratories in Serbia. Methods: This study was conducted between 2013 and 2016. In 2013, HER2 results were evaluated using two sets of four different breast cancer specimens in five laboratories. A total of 20 immunohistochemistry and 20 CISH cases were tested. In 2014, there were 6 testing rounds, and a total of 24 specimens were analyzed, whereas in 2015 and 2016, seven testing rounds were conducted, with four additional cases (i.e. a total of 28 specimens). In 2014, 2015 and 2016, all institutions performed immunohistochemical analysis only. Results: We found discrepancies in HER2 immunohistochemical (IHC) results in all four surveys. IHC testing resulted in diagnostic discordance between participating centers in two (2/17) cases in 2013, two (2/24) in 2014, four (4/27) cases in 2015 and three cases (3/27) in 2016. The overall agreement among the centers was 79%, 85.5%, 83.5% and 89.4%, respectively. For CISH analyses, the results for 16 (84.2%) of 19 samples were consistent for all participants. Three results were found to be discordant, indicating a misdiagnosis rate of 15.8%. In all the discrepant cases, interinstitutional discordances were related to technical and evaluation issues. Conclusions: Our study highlights the difficulty encountered during HER2 testing using immunohistochemistry and CISH. This also emphasizes the need for rigorous quality control procedures for specimen preparation and analysis. © 2019 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved.