Advertisement

Immunohistochemistry of Biomarkers

  • Patrick L. Fitzgibbons
  • Kumarasen Cooper
Chapter
Part of the Molecular Pathology Library book series (MPLB, volume 2)

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.

Keywords

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Status Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Positivity Antigen Retrieval Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    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.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fox CH, Johnson FB, Whiting J, Roller PP. Formaldehyde fixation. J Histochem Cytochem. 1985;33:845–853.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Helander KG. Kinetic studies of formaldehyde binding in tissue. Biotech Histochem. 1994;69:177–179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boenisch T. Effect of heat-induced antigen retrieval following inconsistent formalin fixation. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2005;13:283–286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leong TY-M, Leong AS-Y. How does antigen retrieval work? Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14:129–131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dowsett M. Estrogen receptor: methodology matters. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5626–5628.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldstein NS, Hewitt SM, Taylor CR, et al. Recommendations for improved standardization of immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007;15:124–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick L. Fitzgibbons
    • 1
  • Kumarasen Cooper
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PathologySt. Jude Medical CenterFullertonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUniversity of Vermont/Fletcher Allen HealthcareBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations