Image cytometric validation of breast carcinoma markers (ER, HER2 and MIB-1) using tissue microarrays: rabbit monoclonal vs. FDA-approved antibodies.

Aziza Nassar, Christine M Norton, Diane Lawson, Cynthia Cohen
{"title":"Image cytometric validation of breast carcinoma markers (ER, HER2 and MIB-1) using tissue microarrays: rabbit monoclonal vs. FDA-approved antibodies.","authors":"Aziza Nassar,&nbsp;Christine M Norton,&nbsp;Diane Lawson,&nbsp;Cynthia Cohen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To use the ACIS III (Dako, Carpinteria, California, U.S.A.) with tissue microarrays (TMAs) to compare rabbit monoclonal antibodies (RMab) for ER, HER2, and MIB-1 with FDA-approved monoclonal (FMab) and polyclonal (FPab) antibodies.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>TMAs of 43 breast cancers were used. Immunohistochemistry was performed using RMab (LabVision, Fremont, California, U.S.A.): ER (SP1; 1/100), HER2 (SP3; 1/100), and MIB-1 (SP6; 1/200). FMPab (Dako) used: ER (1D5; 1/50), HercepTest kit and MIB-1 (MIB-1; 1/160). The stained TMAs were quantitated visually and by image cytometry (ACIS III).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall agreement between RMab and FMab for ER using visual (98.45%) and image analysis (97.56%) was excellent, with a kappa level of 0.89 and 0.94, respectively. For HER2, the overall agreement between RMab and FPab was fair for visual (67.44%) and substantial (87.50%) for image analysis, with a kappa level of 0.32 and 0.72, respectively. For MIB-1, there was fair (64.29%) to poor (43.33%) agreement between MIB-1 RMab and FMab using visual and image analysis, with a kappa level of 0.47 and 0.16, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RMabs for ER (SP1) and HER2 (SP3) are almost comparable to their counterpart, FDA antibodies; however, MIB-1 RMab (SP6) shows poor concordance with FMab in TMA. Image analysis shows a better concordance than visual quantitation assessment specifically for ER and HER2.</p>","PeriodicalId":76995,"journal":{"name":"Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology","volume":"32 4","pages":"192-200"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To use the ACIS III (Dako, Carpinteria, California, U.S.A.) with tissue microarrays (TMAs) to compare rabbit monoclonal antibodies (RMab) for ER, HER2, and MIB-1 with FDA-approved monoclonal (FMab) and polyclonal (FPab) antibodies.

Study design: TMAs of 43 breast cancers were used. Immunohistochemistry was performed using RMab (LabVision, Fremont, California, U.S.A.): ER (SP1; 1/100), HER2 (SP3; 1/100), and MIB-1 (SP6; 1/200). FMPab (Dako) used: ER (1D5; 1/50), HercepTest kit and MIB-1 (MIB-1; 1/160). The stained TMAs were quantitated visually and by image cytometry (ACIS III).

Results: The overall agreement between RMab and FMab for ER using visual (98.45%) and image analysis (97.56%) was excellent, with a kappa level of 0.89 and 0.94, respectively. For HER2, the overall agreement between RMab and FPab was fair for visual (67.44%) and substantial (87.50%) for image analysis, with a kappa level of 0.32 and 0.72, respectively. For MIB-1, there was fair (64.29%) to poor (43.33%) agreement between MIB-1 RMab and FMab using visual and image analysis, with a kappa level of 0.47 and 0.16, respectively.

Conclusion: RMabs for ER (SP1) and HER2 (SP3) are almost comparable to their counterpart, FDA antibodies; however, MIB-1 RMab (SP6) shows poor concordance with FMab in TMA. Image analysis shows a better concordance than visual quantitation assessment specifically for ER and HER2.

使用组织微阵列对乳腺癌标志物(ER, HER2和MIB-1)的图像细胞术验证:兔单克隆与fda批准的抗体。
目的:利用ACIS III (Dako, Carpinteria, California, usa)与组织微阵列(TMAs)比较兔ER、HER2和MIB-1单克隆抗体(RMab)与fda批准的单克隆抗体(FMab)和多克隆抗体(FPab)。研究设计:使用了43例乳腺癌的tma。免疫组化采用RMab (LabVision, Fremont, California, usa): ER (SP1;1/100), her2 (sp3;1/100)和MIB-1 (SP6;1/200)。FMPab (Dako)使用:ER (1D5;1/50), HercepTest试剂盒和MIB-1 (MIB-1;1/160)。结果:RMab和FMab对ER的视觉分析(98.45%)和图像分析(97.56%)的总体一致性很好,kappa水平分别为0.89和0.94。对于HER2, RMab和FPab在视觉分析方面的总体一致性为一般(67.44%),在图像分析方面的总体一致性为显著(87.50%),kappa水平分别为0.32和0.72。对于MIB-1,使用视觉和图像分析,MIB-1 RMab和FMab之间的一致性为一般(64.29%)和较差(43.33%),kappa水平分别为0.47和0.16。结论:针对ER (SP1)和HER2 (SP3)的单克隆抗体与对应的FDA抗体几乎相当;然而,在TMA中,MIB-1 RMab (SP6)与FMab的一致性较差。图像分析结果显示ER和HER2的一致性优于目测定量评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信