Detection of HER2 Status in Breast Cancer: Comparison of Current Methods with MLPA and Real-time RT-PCR

  • Published : 2013.12.31


Human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) status is an important prognostic factor in breast cancer. There is no globally accepted method for determining its status, and which method is most precise is still a matter of debate. We here analyzed HER2 mRNA expression by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) and HER2 DNA amplification using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). In parallel, we performed a routine evaluation of HER2 protein by immunohistochemistry (IHC). To assess the accuracy of the RT-PCR and MLPA techniques, a combination of IHC and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was used, substituting FISH when the results of IHC were ambiguous (2+) and for those IHC results that disagreed with MLPA and qRT-PCR, this approach being termed IHC-FISH. The IHC results for four samples were not compatible with the MLPA and qRT-PCR results; the MLPA and qRT-PCR results for these samples were confirmed by FISH. The correlations between IHC-FISH and qRT-PCR or MLPA were 0.945 and 0.973, respectively. The ASCO/CAP guideline IHC/FISH correlation with MLPA was (0.827) and with RT-PCR was (0.854). The correlations between the IHC results (0, 1+ as negative, and 3+ as positive) and qRT-PCR and MLPA techniques were 0.743 and 0.831, respectively. Given the shortcomings of IHC analysis and greater correlations between MLPA, qRT-PCR, and FISH methods than IHC analysis alone with each of these three methods, we propose that MLPA and real-time PCR are good alternatives to IHC. However a suitable cut-off point for qRTPCR is a prerequisite for determining the exact status of HER2.


  1. Babu GR, Samari G, Cohen SP, et al (2011). Breast cancer screening among females in Iran and recommendations for improved practice: a review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1647-55.
  2. Baehner FL, Achacoso N, Maddala T, et al (2010). Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 assessment in a case-control study: comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction performed by central laboratories. J Clin Oncol, 28, 4300-6.
  3. Barberis M, Pellegrini C, Cannone M, et al (2008). Quantitative PCR and HER2 testing in breast cancer: a technical and cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Clin Pathol, 129, 563-70.
  4. Barrett C, Magee H, O'Toole D, Daly S, Jeffers M (2007). Amplification of the HER2 gene in breast cancers testing 2+ weak positive by HercepTest immunohistochemistry: false-positive or false-negative immunohistochemistry? J Clin Pathol, 60, 690-3.
  5. Blackwell KL, Burstein HJ, Storniolo AM, et al (2010). Randomized study of Lapatinib alone or in combination with trastuzumab in women with ErbB2-positive, trastuzumabrefractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 28, 1124-30.
  6. Bloom K, Harrington D (2004). Enhanced accuracy and reliability of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical scoring using digital microscopy. Am J Clin Pathol, 121, 620-30.
  7. Collins R, Xiang D, Christie A, et al (2012). Comparison of HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using automated imaging system and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). A retrospective analysis of 2853 cases. Cancer Res, 72, 4.
  8. Criscitiello C, Curigliano G (2013). HER2 signaling pathway and trastuzumab cardiotoxicity. Future Oncol, 9, 179-81.
  9. Cui J, Germer K, Wu T, et al (2012). Cross-talk between HER2 and MED1 regulates tamoxifen resistance of human breast cancer cells. Cancer Res, 72, 5625-34.
  10. Del Mastro L, Lambertini M, Bighin C, et al (2012). Trastuzumab as first-line therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 12, 1391-405.
  11. Dolan M, Snover D (2005). Comparison of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment of HER-2 status in routine practice. Am J Clin Pathol, 123, 766-70.
  12. Farolfi A, Melegari E, Aquilina M, et al(2013). Trastuzumabinduced cardiotoxicity in early breast cancer patients: a retrospective study of possible risk and protective factors. Heart, 99, 634-9.
  13. Gjerdrum LM, Sorensen BS, Kjeldsen E, et al (2004). Real-time quantitative PCR of microdissected paraffin-embedded breast carcinoma: an alternative method for HER-2/neu analysis. J Mol Diagn, 6, 42-51.
  14. Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Morales-Vasquez F, Hortobagyi GN (2007). Overview of resistance to systemic therapy in patients with breast cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol, 608, 1-22.
  15. Gutierrez C, Schiff R (2011). HER2: biology, detection, and clinical implications. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 135, 55-62.
  16. Hurvitz SA, Hu Y, O'Brien N, Finn RS (2013). Current approaches and future directions in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev, 39, 219-29.
  17. Jorgensen JT, Moller S, Rasmussen BB, et al (2011). High concordance between two companion diagnostics tests: a concordance study between the HercepTest and the HER2 FISH pharmDx kit. Am J Clin Pathol, 136, 145-51.
  18. Keyhani E, Muhammadnejad A, Karimlou M (2012). Prevalence of HER-2-positive invasive breast cancer: a systematic review from Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 5477-82.
  19. Kostopoulou E, Vageli D, Kaisaridou D, et al (2007). Comparative evaluation of non-informative HER-2 immunoreactions (2+) in breast carcinomas with FISH, CISH and QRT-PCR. Breast, 16, 615-24.
  20. Lyng MB, Laenkholm A-V, Pallisgaard N, Ditzel HJ (2008). Identification of genes for normalization of real-time RT-PCR data in breast carcinomas. BMC Cancer, 8, 20.
  21. Masood S (2006). Raising the bar: a plea for standardization and quality improvement in the practice of breast pathology. Breast J, 12, 409-12.
  22. Mass RD, Press MF, Anderson S, et al (2005). Evaluation of clinical outcomes according to HER2 detection by fluorescence in situ hybridization in women with metastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab. Clin Breast Cancer, 6, 240-6.
  23. Moelans CB, de Weger RA, Ezendam C, van Diest PJ (2009). HER-2/neu amplification testing in breast cancer by Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification: influence of manual- and laser microdissection. BMC Cancer, 9, 4.
  24. O'Malley FP, Parkes R, Latta E, et al (2001). Comparison of HER2/neu status assessed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry. Am J Clin Pathol, 115, 504-11.
  25. Perez EA, Suman VJ, Davidson NE, et al (2006). HER2 testing by local, central, and reference laboratories in specimens from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 intergroup adjuvant trial. J Clin Oncol, 24, 3032-8.
  26. Pfaffl MW, HorganGW, Dempfle L(2002). Relative expression software tool $(REST{\copyright})$ for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic acids research, 30, 36.
  27. Ramakers C, Ruijter JM, Deprez RHL, Moorman AF (2003). Assumption-free analysis of quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) data. Neuroscience letters, 339, 62-6.
  28. Rosa FE, Silveira SM, Silveira CGT, et al (2009). Quantitative real-time RT-PCR and chromogenic in situ hybridization: precise methods to detect HER-2 status in breast carcinoma. BMC Cancer, 9, 90.
  29. Ross JS, Slodkowska EA, Symmans WF, et al (2009). The HER-2 receptor and breast cancer: ten years of targeted anti-HER-2 therapy and personalized medicine. Oncologist, 14, 320-68.
  30. Ruijter J, Ramakers C, Hoogaars W, et al (2009). Amplification efficiency: linking baseline and bias in the analysis of quantitative PCR data. Nucleic acids Res, 37, 45.
  31. Sauter G, Lee J, Bartlett JMS, Slamon DJ, Press MF (2009). Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. J Clin Oncol, 27, 1323-33.
  32. Schnitt SJ, Jacobs TW (2001). Current Status of HER2 testing caught between a rock and a hard place. Am J Clin Pathol, 116, 806-10.
  33. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2013). Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin, 63, 11-30.
  34. Tawfik OW, Kimler BF, Davis M, et al (2006). Comparison of immunohistochemistry by automated cellular imaging system (ACIS) versus fluorescence in-situ hybridization in the evaluation of HER-2/neu expression in primary breast carcinoma. Histopathol, 48, 258-67.
  35. Valabrega G, Montemurro F, Aglietta M (2007). Trastuzumab: mechanism of action, resistance and future perspectives in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. Ann Oncol, 18, 977-84.
  36. Vanden Bempt I, Vanhentenrijk V, Drijkoningen M, et al (2005). Real-time reverse transcription-PCR and fluorescence insitu hybridization are complementary to understand the mechanisms involved in HER-2/neu overexpression in human breast carcinomas. Histopathol, 46, 431-41.
  37. Wang S, Saboorian MH, Frenkel EP, et al (2001). Assessment of HER-2/neu status in breast cancer. Automated Cellular Imaging System (ACIS)-assisted quantitation of immunohistochemical assay achieves high accuracy in comparison with fluorescence in situ hybridization assay as the standard. Am J Clin Pathol, 116, 495-503.
  38. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Schwartz JN, et al (2007). 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, 131, 18-43.
  39. Zhao H, Langerod A, Ji Y, et al (2004). Different gene expression patterns in invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Mol Biol Cell, 15, 2523-36.

Cited by

  1. Detection of Gene Amplification by Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification in Comparison with In Situ Hybridization and Immunohistochemistry vol.16, pp.17, 2015,
  2. Role of HER2 in Brain Metastasis of Breast Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.16, pp.4, 2015,
  3. Recent Progress in HER2 Associated Breast Cancer vol.16, pp.7, 2015,
  4. gene status and association of clinicopathological variables with it in invasive breast cancer patients vol.124, pp.5, 2016,
  5. Assessment of dual-probe Her-2 fluorescent in situ hybridization in breast cancer by the 2013 ASCO/CAP guidelines produces more equivocal results than that by the 2007 ASCO/CAP guidelines vol.159, pp.1, 2016,
  6. in patients with breast cancer vol.13, pp.11, 2017,
  7. High expression of CEACAM19, a new member of carcinoembryonic antigen gene family, in patients with breast cancer vol.17, pp.4, 2017,