Abstract
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has an essential role in the diagnostic evaluation of cancers, most commonly to help identify and subclassify tumors, but its utility in assessing biomarkers that are predictive of benefit or lack of benefit from specific chemotherapies is becoming increasingly important. When IHC is used for predictive marker testing, the assessment of the extent of protein expression may be even more important than the presence or absence of expression, but many variables affect the quantitative measurement of protein expression in routinely processed tissues, and these can have profound influences on the test results. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been a critical tool for pathologists for more than 20 years and is still used most frequently to determine cell lineage and tumor type. Because of its far greater specificity, IHC has essentially replaced most traditional histochemical stains once used for this purpose. IHC is also used to identify specific cellular constituents (e.g., basal and myoepithelial cells), which may help to determine the presence of malignancy and/or invasion and to diagnose infectious diseases, but its role in predictive marker testing to select or exclude patients for specific therapies is growing rapidly in frequency and importance. Until recently, only a few predictive markers were routinely assessed in all patients, but an increasing number are becoming a regular part of clinical management. Such tissue-based biomarkers, many assessed solely by IHC, may predict responsiveness (or lack of response) to specific drugs or to entire classes of chemotherapeutic agents; however, along with the discovery of new biomarkers and their clinical significance, we are increasingly recognizing problems related to variability in laboratory assessment.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687–1717.
Olaussen KA, Dunant A, Fouret P, et al DNA repair by ERCC1 in non-small-cell lung cancer and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:983–991.
Chung KY, Shia J, Kemeny NE, et al Cetuximab shows activity in colorectal cancer patients with tumors that do not express the epidermal growth factor receptor by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1803–1810.
Pinter F, Papay J, Almasi A, et al Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) high gene copy number and activating mutations in lung adenocarcinomas are not consistently accompanied by positivity for EGFR protein by standard immunohistochemistry. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10:160–168.
Lynch HT, Boland CR, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, et al Who should be sent for genetic testing in hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3534–3542.
Shia J. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: part I. The utility of immunohistochemistry. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10:293–300.
Lanza G, Gafa R, Santini A, et al. Immunohistochemical test for MLH1 and MSH2 expression predicts clinical outcome in stage II and III colorectal cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2359–2367.
Jover R, Zapater P, Castells A, et al. Mismatch repair status in the prediction of benefit from adjuvant fluorouracil chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. Gut. 2006;55:848–855.
Kane MF, Loda M, Gaida GM, et al. Methylation of the hMLH1 promoter correlates with lack of expression of hMLH1 in sporadic colon tumors and mismatch repair-defective human tumor cell lines. Cancer Res. 1997;57:808–811.
Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E, et al. Real-world performance of HER2 testing: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:852–854.
Roche PC, Suman VJ, Jenkins RB, et al. Concordance between local and central laboratory HER2 testing in the breast intergroup trial N9831. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:855–857.
Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:18–43.
Goldstein NS, Ferkowicz M, Odish E, et al. Minimum formalin fixation time for consistent estrogen receptor immunohistochemical staining of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:86–92.
Fox CH, Johnson FB, Whiting J, Roller PP. Formaldehyde fixation. J Histochem Cytochem. 1985;33:845–853.
Helander KG. Kinetic studies of formaldehyde binding in tissue. Biotech Histochem. 1994;69:177–179.
Jacobs TW, Gown AM, Yaziji H, et al. Specificity of HercepTest in determining HER-2/neu status of breast cancers using the United States Food and Drug Administration-approved scoring system. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1983–1987.
De Marzo AM, Fedor HH, Gage WR, Rubin MA. Inadequate formalin fixation decreases reliability of p27 immunohistochemical staining: probing optimal fixation time using high-density tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol. 2002;33:756–760.
Oyama T, Ishikawa Y, Hayashi M, et al. The effects of fixation, processing and evaluation criteria on immunohistochemical detection of hormone receptors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2007;14:182–188.
Boenisch T. Effect of heat-induced antigen retrieval following inconsistent formalin fixation. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2005;13:283–286.
Shi SR, Liu C, Taylor CR. Standardization of immunohistochemistry for formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections based on the antigen-retrieval technique: from experiments to hypothesis. J Histochem Cytochem. 2007;55:105–109.
Leong TY-M, Leong AS-Y. How does antigen retrieval work? Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14:129–131.
Cheang MC, Treaba DO, Speers CH, 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. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5637–5644.
Dowsett M. Estrogen receptor: methodology matters. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5626–5628.
Sabbattini E, Bisgaard K, Ascani S, et al The EnVision++ system: a new immunohistochemical method for diagnostics and research. Critical comparison with the APAAP, ChemMate, CSA, LABC and SABC techniques. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:506–511.
Cooper K, Haffajee Z, Taylor L. Comparative analysis of biotin intranuclear inclusions of gestational endometrium using the APAAP, ABC and the PAP immunodetection systems. J Clin Pathol. 1997;50:153–156.
Lewis JT, Ketterling RP, Halling KC, et al. Analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity and amplification status in breast carcinomas with equivocal (2+) HER-2 immunostaining. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124:273–281.
Goldstein NS, Hewitt SM, Taylor CR, et al. Recommendations for improved standardization of immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007;15:124–133.
Fitzgibbons PL, Murphy DA, Dorfman DM, et al. Interlaboratory comparison of immunohistochemical testing for HER2: results of the College of American Pathologists HER2 Immunohistochemistry Tissue Microarray Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:1440–1445.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fitzgibbons, P.L., Cooper, K. (2009). Immunohistochemistry of Biomarkers. In: Allen, T., Cagle, P.T. (eds) Basic Concepts of Molecular Pathology. Molecular Pathology Library, vol 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89626-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89626-7_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-89625-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-89626-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)