Central review of discordant samples for microarray based on ER, PR, and HER2 and local IHC/FISH assessment worldwide from 827 patients

10554 Background: Differences in fixation and IHC and subjective interpretation can substantially affect the accuracy and reproducibility of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2 expression. The commercially available TargetPrint test measures the mRNA expression level of ER, PR and HER2 and is 98% concordant with centrally assessed ER as presented by Viale et al, SABCS 2011. This study compares results from the microarray-based TargetPrint with IHC and FISH (for HER2 IHC2+) generated by local standard procedures. Methods: Fresh tumor samples (core needle biopsies or surgical) were collected for 831 patients diagnosed with breast cancer stage I to IV (Feb 2008 - Jan 2011) from 22 hospitals from Europe, New Zealand, Japan and US. The results of the IHC/FISH assessments performed according to the local standards at the hospitals were compared to the quantitative gene expression readouts with TargetPrint. Discordant cases were centrally reviewed for IHC/FISH assessment. Results: Of the 831 samples, IHC assessment was unknown for 4 ER/ PR samples; HER2 was unknown for 12 samples. Comparison of IHC and gene expression read out by TargetPrint showed a concordance of 95% for ER; 83% for PR and 94% for HER2. In this study, 3% of all IHC ER positive samples were classified negative by microarray, and 11% of IHC PR positive samples were classified negative by microarray. For HER2, 4% of IHC/FISH HER2 positive samples were classified negative by microarray and 2% of IHC/FISH HER2 negative samples were classified positive by microarray. Most notably, all available 5 ER IHC negative/TargetPrint positive samples turned out to be positive with central re-assessment. HER2 IHC2+ samples with discordant classifications for TargetPrint and local assessment are currently being reviewed for FISH/SISH assessment. Conclusions: Microarray based readout of ER, PR and HER2 status using TargetPrint is fairly comparable to local IHC and FISH analysis in 827 analyzed samples in various hospitals worldwide. However, re-assessment of discordant cases –especially IHC ER-/TargetPrint ER+ cases- confirms TargetPrint to be a useful high quality second opinion for local IHC/FISH assessment.