Breast Neoplasms: Fitzgibbons PL

Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, Dowsett M, Fitzgibbons PL, Hanna WM, Langer A, McShane LM, Paik S, Pegram MD, Perez EA, Press MF, Rhodes A, Sturgeon C, Taube SE, Tubbs R, Vance GH, van de Vijver M, Wheeler TM, Hayes DF, Anonymous00094. · American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; and the College of American Pathologists, Northfield, IL, USA. · Arch Pathol Lab Med. · Pubmed #19548375 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2(HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations. RESULTS: Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry(IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy. RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3 + (uniform, intense membrane staining of 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than six HER2 gene copies per nucleus or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1 +, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.

Vance GH, Barry TS, Bloom KJ, Fitzgibbons PL, Hicks DG, Jenkins RB, Persons DL, Tubbs RR, Hammond ME, Anonymous00034. · Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. · Arch Pathol Lab Med. · Pubmed #19391661 No free full text.

Abstract: CONTEXT: Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2 gene amplification has been well documented and represents subclonal diversity within the tumor. The reported incidence of intratumor HER2 amplification genetic heterogeneity ranges in the literature from approximately 5% to 30%. The presence of HER2 genetic heterogeneity may increase subjectivity in HER2 interpretation by the pathologist. OBJECTIVES: To define HER2 genetic heterogeneity and to provide practice guidelines for examining and reporting breast tumors with genetic heterogeneity for improvement of HER2 testing in breast cancer. DESIGN: We convened an expert panel to discuss HER2 gene amplification testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Components addressed included a definition of HER2 amplification heterogeneity, practice guidelines for examination of the tissue, and reporting criteria for this analysis. RESULTS: Genetic heterogeneity for amplification of HER2 gene status in invasive breast cancer is defined and guidelines established for assessing and reporting HER2 results in these cases. These guidelines are additive to and expand those published in 2007 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists. CONCLUSION: Standardized methods for analysis will improve the accuracy and consistency of interpretation of HER2 gene amplification status in breast cancer.

Fitzgibbons PL, LiVolsi VA. · Department of Pathology, St Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, California 92835, USA. · Am J Surg Pathol. · Pubmed #11075858 No free full text.

Abstract: Sentinel lymph node biopsy has been shown to be an accurate predictor of axillary nodal status in invasive breast cancer and is a useful alternative to axillary dissection for some patients. Because radioactive materials are often used to identify the sentinel lymph node, concerns have been raised regarding the safe handling of tissue specimens obtained by this technique. The Surgical Pathology Committee of the College of American Pathologists and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology have developed recommendations for the safe handling of radioactive specimens obtained by sentinel lymphadenectomy.

Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, Ruby SG, O'Malley F, Simpson JF, Connolly JL, Hayes DF, Edge SB, Lichter A, Schnitt SJ. · Good Samaritan Hospital, Los Angeles, Calif., USA. · Arch Pathol Lab Med. · Pubmed #10888772 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Factors were ranked according to previously established College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic import and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that had been extensively studied biologically and clinically, but whose import remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected about existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Factors ranked in category I included TNM staging information, histologic grade, histologic type, mitotic figure counts, and hormone receptor status. Category II factors included c-erbB-2 (Her2-neu), proliferation markers, lymphatic and vascular channel invasion, and p53. Factors in category III included DNA ploidy analysis, microvessel density, epidermal growth factor receptor, transforming growth factor-alpha, bcl-2, pS2, and cathepsin D. This report constitutes a detailed outline of the findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines as defined.

Hammond ME, Fitzgibbons PL, Compton CC, Grignon DJ, Page DL, Fielding LP, Bostwick D, Pajak TF. · LDS Hospital and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. · Arch Pathol Lab Med. · Pubmed #10888771 No free full text.

Abstract: The College of American Pathologists convened a prognostic factor conference in June 1999 to consider prognostic and predictive factors in breast, colon, and prostate cancer, and to stratify these factors into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. Because so little progress in prognostic factor clinical utility has been made in the last 5 years, the conference participants focused their attention on decreasing variation in methods, interpretation, and reporting of these factors so that greater clarity of value could be achieved. The conference was organized to promote discussion, broad input, and future planning. An initial plenary session provided an overview of the status of tumor marker research, the impact of variation in medicine and pathology, and statistical issues related to prognostic factor research. In working group sessions for each cancer type, participants interactively evaluated and refined the documents created by the expert panels. A second plenary session dealt with issues common to all 3 groups, including the problem of micrometastases in lymph nodes in these sites; statistical issues that arose during the breakout discussions; and issues of variation in methods, interpretation, and reporting of immunohistochemical assays. A faculty session brainstormed strategies that could be used to implement the changes recommended. This session included invited representatives of the Food and Drug Administration, Health Care Financing Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, American Joint Committee on Cancer, and International Union Against Cancer. Cancer site and general recommendations were presented and discussed during a final session to achieve consensus of the conference participants and to address feasibility of implementation of these recommendations. A final discussion focused on future initiatives that might lead to implementation of the changes proposed in the conference by the various organizations represented. This report summarizes the general conference recommendations, cancer working group recommendations, and plans for implementation of the recommendations.

Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, Dowsett M, Fitzgibbons PL, Hanna WM, Langer A, McShane LM, Paik S, Pegram MD, Perez EA, Press MF, Rhodes A, Sturgeon C, Taube SE, Tubbs R, Vance GH, van de Vijver M, Wheeler TM, Hayes DF, Anonymous00055, Anonymous00056. · American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA, USA. · J Clin Oncol. · Pubmed #17159189 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations. RESULTS: Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy. RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3+ (uniform, intense membrane staining of > 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than six HER2 gene copies per nucleus or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1+, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.

Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, Connolly JL, de Baca ME, Fitzgibbons PL, Hayes DF, Kleer C, O'Malley FP, Page DL, Smith BL, Weaver DL, Winer E, Anonymous00117. · Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA. · Arch Pathol Lab Med. · Pubmed #19123730 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Turner RR, Weaver DL, Cserni G, Lester SC, Hirsch K, Elashoff DA, Fitzgibbons PL, Viale G, Mazzarol G, Ibarra JA, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE. · Department of Pathology, Saint John's Health Center, 1328 Twenty-Second St, Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA. · J Clin Oncol. · Pubmed #18182666 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Reliable pathologic stage classification of axillary lymph nodes is an important determinant of prognosis and therapeutic decision making for patients with invasive breast cancer. Pathologists' distinction between micrometastasis (pN1mi) and isolated tumor cells [ITC; pN0(i+)] is variable using the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manual (Sixth Edition). We sought to determine whether a set of clearly defined histologic criteria could lead to reproducible nodal classification by pathologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Digital images of sentinel lymph node biopsies from 56 patients with small-volume nodal metastases were examined by six experienced breast pathologists (MDs), first as a pre-test, and again as a post-test after studying a training program that outlined and illustrated the classification criteria. RESULTS: Post-test results, after study of the training program, were significantly improved. Compared with the reference MD, agreement improved from 76.2% (pre-test kappa = 0.575; standard deviation [SD], 0.25) to 97.3% (post-test kappa = 0.947; SD, 0.049). Multirater analysis of agreement among the six MDs improved from 71.5% (pre-test kappa = 0.487; ASE, 0.039) to 95.7% (post-test kappa = 0.915; ASE, 0.037). Agreement on lobular carcinoma metastasis classification improved from 55% (23 of 42; pre-test) to 100% (42 of 42; post-test) (P < .001), and agreement on ITC classification in nodal parenchyma improved from 67.6% (69 of 102; pre-test) to 98.0% (100 of 102; post-test; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Application of current definitions for classification of small-volume nodal metastases are inconsistent, leading to variable classification of ITC and micrometastases. Reproducibility of pathologic nodal stage classification is achievable through study of a training set to clarify the AJCC criteria.

Fitzgibbons PL, Murphy DA, Dorfman DM, Roche PC, Tubbs RR, Anonymous00257. · Department of Pathology, St Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif, USA. · Arch Pathol Lab Med. · Pubmed #17090184 No free full text.

Abstract: CONTEXT: Correct assessment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status is essential in managing patients with invasive breast carcinoma, but few data are available on the accuracy of laboratories performing HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC). OBJECTIVE: To review the results of the 2004 and 2005 College of American Pathologists HER2 Immunohistochemistry Tissue Microarray Survey. DESIGN: The HER2 survey is designed for laboratories performing immunohistochemical staining and interpretation for HER2. The survey uses tissue microarrays, each consisting of ten 3-mm tissue cores obtained from different invasive breast carcinomas. All cases are also analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Participants receive 8 tissue microarrays (80 cases) with instructions to perform immunostaining for HER2 using the laboratory's standard procedures. The laboratory interprets the stained slides and returns results to the College of American Pathologists for analysis. In 2004 and 2005, a core was considered "graded" when at least 90% of laboratories agreed on the result--negative (0, 1+) versus positive (2+, 3+). This interlaboratory comparison survey included 102 laboratories in 2004 and 141 laboratories in 2005. RESULTS: Of the 160 cases in both surveys, 111 (69%) achieved 90% consensus (graded). All 43 graded cores scored as IHC-positive were fluorescence in situ hybridization-positive, whereas all but 3 of the 68 IHC-negative graded cores were fluorescence in situ hybridization-negative. Ninety-seven (95%) of 102 laboratories in 2004 and 129 (91%) of 141 laboratories in 2005 correctly scored at least 90% of the graded cores. CONCLUSION: Performance among laboratories performing HER2 IHC in this tissue microarray-based survey was excellent. Cores found to be IHC-positive or IHC-negative by participant consensus can be used as validated benchmarks for interlaboratory comparison, allowing laboratories to assess their performance and determine if improvements are needed.

Fitzgibbons PL, Connolly JL, Page DL. · Good Samaritan Hospital, Los Angeles, Calif., USA. · Arch Pathol Lab Med. · Pubmed #10888779 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Fitzgibbons PL. · Department of Pathology, Good Samaritan Hospital, Los Angeles, CA 90017, USA. · Arch Pathol Lab Med. · Pubmed #10705409 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.