Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/118753
Title: Accurate Identification of ALK Positive Lung Carcinoma Patients: Novel FDA-Cleared Automated Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Scanning System and Ultrasensitive Immunohistochemistry
Author: Conde, Esther
Suárez Gauthier, Ana
Benito, Amparo
Garrido, Pilar
García Campelo, Rosario
Biscuola, Michele
Paz-Ares, Luis
Hardisson, David
Castro, Javier de
Camacho, María del Carmen
Rodríguez Abreu, Delvys
Abdulkader, Ihab
Ramírez Ruz, J. (José)
Reguart, Noemí
Salido Galeote, Marta
Pijuan, Lara
Arriola Aperribay, Edurne
Sanz, Julián
Folgueras, Victoria
Villanueva, Noemí
Gómez Román, Javier
Hidalgo, Manuel
López Ríos, Fernando
Keywords: Càncer de pulmó
Oncologia
Lung cancer
Oncology
Issue Date: 23-Sep-2014
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Abstract: Background: Based on the excellent results of the clinical trials with ALK-inhibitors, the importance of accurately identifying ALK positive lung cancer has never been greater. However, there are increasing number of recent publications addressing discordances between FISH and IHC. The controversy is further fuelled by the different regulatory approvals. This situation prompted us to investigate two ALK IHC antibodies (using a novel ultrasensitive detection-amplification kit) and an automated ALK FISH scanning system (FDA-cleared) in a series of non-small cell lung cancer tumor samples. Methods: Forty-seven ALK FISH-positive and 56 ALK FISH-negative NSCLC samples were studied. All specimens were screened for ALK expression by two IHC antibodies (clone 5A4 from Novocastra and clone D5F3 from Ventana) and for ALK rearrangement by FISH (Vysis ALK FISH break-apart kit), which was automatically captured and scored by using Bioview's automated scanning system. Results: All positive cases with the IHC antibodies were FISH-positive. There was only one IHC-negative case with both antibodies which showed a FISH-positive result. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the IHC in comparison with FISH were 98% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: The specificity of these ultrasensitive IHC assays may obviate the need for FISH confirmation in positive IHC cases. However, the likelihood of false negative IHC results strengthens the case for FISH testing, at least in some situations
Note: Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107200
It is part of: PLoS One, 2014, vol. 9, num. 9, p. 107200
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/118753
Related resource: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107200
ISSN: 1932-6203
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Fonaments Clínics)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
660519.pdf520.78 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons