Advertisement

Significance of Immunohistochemistry and In Situ Hybridization Techniques for Predictive Biomarker Studies

  • Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus
Chapter

Abstract

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) are morphology-based methods which allow direct assignment of findings to the cells of interest, e.g., cancer cells.

IHC detects changes of protein expression qualitatively or as a semiquantitative measurement. Reliability of IHC-based predictive biomarkers is highly dependent on pre-analytical factors, selection of suitable antibodies, staining procedures, as well as an assessment of staining. Specific reading and scoring approaches for different tumor entities make evaluations complex, especially for evolving biomarkers in the context of immuno-oncology treatment.

ISH assays are basically capable of detecting gene amplifications, large deletions, and gene fusions. Definitions of amplifications are gene and entity specific. Activating rearrangements frequently involve genes encoding receptor tyrosine kinases which can be addressed by tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Most of the currently applied predictive biomarkers are based on either IHC or ISH. The number of assays is steadily growing, and great efforts are needed to achieve and maintain the highest level of reliability. Future developments will introduce multiplexing IHC and ISH.

Keywords

Immunohistochemistry In situ hybridization FISH Gene rearrangement Amplification 

References

  1. 1.
    Wolff AC, Hammond EH, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, Allred DC, Bartlett JMS, Bilous M, Fitzgibbons P, Hanna W, Jenkins RB, Mangu PB, Paik S, Perez EA, Press MF, Spears PA, Vance GH, Viale G, Hayes DF. 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. 2013;31:3997–4013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rüschoff J, Hanna W, Bilous M, Hofmann M, Osamura RY, Penault-Llorca F, van de Vijver M, Viale G. HER2 testing in gastric cancer: a practical approach. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:637–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stoss OC, Scheel A, Nagelmeier I, Schildhaus HU, Henkel T, Viale G, Jasani B, Untch M, Rüschoff J. Impact of updated HER2 testing guidelines in breast cancer – re-evaluation of HERA trial fluorescence in situ hybridization data. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:1528–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsao MS, Hirsch FR, Yatabe Y, editors. IASLC Atlas of ALK and ROS1 testing in lung cancer. 2nd ed. North Fort Myers: Editorial Rx press; 2016.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Aisner DL, Arcila ME, Beasley MB, Bernicker E, Colasacco C, Dacic S, Hirsch FR, Kerr K, Kwiatkowski DJ, Marc Ladanyi, Nowak JA, Sholl L, Temple-Smolkin R, Solomon B, Souter LH, Thunnissen E, Tsao MS, Ventura CB, Wynes MW, Yatabe Y. Updated molecular testing guideline for the selection of lung cancer patients for treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn. 2018. pii: S1525-1578(17)30590-1. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PathologyUniversitätsmedizin GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations