Quantitative Evaluation of Protein Expression as a Function of Tissue Microarray Core Diameter: Is a Large (1.5 mm) Core Better Than a Small (0.6 mm) Core?

2010 ◽  
Vol 134 (4) ◽  
pp. 613-619
Author(s):  
Valsamo K. Anagnostou ◽  
Frank J. Lowery ◽  
Konstantinos N. Syrigos ◽  
Philip T. Cagle ◽  
David L. Rimm

Abstract Context.—Tissue microarrays (TMAs) have emerged as a high-throughput technology for protein evaluation in large cohorts. This technique allows maximization of tissue resources by analysis of sections from 0.6-mm to 1.5-mm core “biopsies” of standard formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks and by the processing of hundreds of cases arrayed on a single recipient block in an identical manner. Objective.—To assess the expression of a series of biomarkers as a function of core size. Although pathologists frequently feel better if larger core sizes are used, there is no evidence in the literature showing that large cores are better (or worse) than small cores for assessment of TMAs. Design.—Estrogen receptor, HER2/neu, epidermal growth factor receptor, STAT3, mTOR, and phospho-p70 S6 kinase were measured by immunofluorescence with automated quantitative analysis. One random 0.6-mm field (one 0.6-mm spot) was compared to 6 to 12 fields per spot, representing 1-mm and 1.5-mm cores, for 3 different tumor types. Results.—We show that measurement of a single random 0.6-mm spot was comparable to analysis of the whole 1-mm or 1.5-mm spot (Pearson R coefficient varying from 0.87–0.98) for all markers tested. Conclusions.—Since TMA technology is now being used in all phases of biomarker development, this work shows that TMAs with 0.6-mm cores are as representative as those with any common larger core size for optimization of standardized experimental conditions. Given that a greater number of 0.6-cores can be arrayed in a single master block, use of this core size allows increased throughput and decreased cost.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 359-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Adams ◽  
M. D. James ◽  
C. G. Smith ◽  
R. H. Wilson ◽  
D. Fisher ◽  
...  

359 Background: KRAS mutation has been shown to be a more effective (though negative) biomarker for selection of patients for EGFR targeted therapy in aCRC. However, positive EGFR immunohistochemistry (IHC) remains a license requirement and was an inclusion criterion in most trials to date. The MRC COIN trial recruited 2445 pts into 3 arms of oxaliplatin + fluoropyrimidine +/- cetuximab without prior EGFR assessment. This trial provides a unique opportunity to definitively examine the role of EGFR IHC as prognostic and predictive marker and potentially the evidence required to remove this assessment from the license for this drug. Methods: Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue was stained retrospectively for EGFR using Dako kit in a national reference lab. Results were assessed by 3 reviewers (BJ, SS, RA) using digital imaging software in a blinded fashion, then by BJ/SS providing consensus for discrepancies. EGFR scoring was assessed as a prognostic variable in association with selected patient, tumor and biochemical data. Cut off points examined for +ve vs -ve tumours, in terms of total tumour cells demonstrating membrane staining, were: 0% vs >0%; <10% vs ≥10%; <20% vs ≥20%. Results: EGFR IHC was adequately assessed for 1621 pts (66% of randomised), 22% were negative (0%) and 78% positive (>0%), balanced across arms. EGFR was not prognostic for PFS within KRAS wt pts at the standardized cut off point 0% vs >0% HR=1.11 95% CI 0.91-1.36 p=0.31 but was at <10% vs ≥10% (HR=1.27 95% CI 1.07-1.52 p=0.008) this was robust to other prognostic variables. No effect was seen for overall response or survival. There was no prognostic effect for the KRAS mutant group. In the 1065 assessable pts randomised to +/- cetuximab, no evidence of EGFR IHC as a predictive marker for response or survival outcomes was observed for the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy (OS HR=1.11 95% CI 0.70-1.75 p=0.66; PFS HR=0.95 95% CI 0.64-1.43 p=0.82). Conclusions: Extensive assessment of samples from this trial suggest a role for EGFR IHC as a prognostic marker in KRAS wt aCRC but refute the predictive value embedded within the licence for cetuximab used in combination with chemo in first-line therapy. [Table: see text]


2011 ◽  
Vol 135 (6) ◽  
pp. 744-752
Author(s):  
Hannelore Kothmaier ◽  
Daniela Rohrer ◽  
Elvira Stacher ◽  
Franz Quehenberger ◽  
Karl-Friedrich Becker ◽  
...  

Abstract Context.—Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue is the routine processing method for diagnostics practiced in pathology departments worldwide. Objective.—To determine the potential value of non–cross-linking, formalin-free tissue fixation for diagnostics in pathology and proteomic investigations. Design.—We tested 3 commercially available, formalin-free tissue fixatives—FineFIX, RCL2, and HOPE—in lung cancer specimens from 10 patients. The fixatives were evaluated for their effects on tissue morphology, protein recovery, and immunoreactivity for a selected panel of proteins differently expressed in lung cancer, using immunohistochemistry and Western blotting. Results.—Tumor-cell analysis with hematoxylin-eosin worked equally well for all tested fixatives when compared with the standard formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded procedure. Movat pentachrome stains showed comparable results for the different matrices and cellular proteins analyzed. The RCL2 (P  =  .01) and HOPE fixatives (P  =  .03) improved protein recovery when compared with formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded or frozen tissues. Our data clearly show that the fixatives evaluated influenced immunoreactivity to matched, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded lung cancer tissue. In particular, membrane-bound proteins, such as epidermal growth factor receptor EGFR, can be detected more efficiently by immunohistochemistry and Western blotting. Conclusion.—We have demonstrated that formalin-free fixatives have the potential in routine pathology and research to replace formalin in histomorphology and protein preservation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document