Comparison of histopathology to gene expression profiling for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer

Anand Kulkarni, Raji Pillai, Ashley M. Ezekiel, W. David Henner, Charles R. Handorf

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Determining the primary site of metastatic cancer with confidence can be challenging. Pathologists commonly use a battery of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains to determine the primary site. Gene expression profiling (GEP) has found increasing use, particularly in the most difficult cases. In this pilot study, a direct comparison between GEP and IHC-guided methods was performed.Methods: Ten archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded metastatic tumor samples for which the primary site had been clinically determined were selected. Five pathologists who were blinded to the diagnosis were asked to determine the primary site using IHC and other stains selected from a panel of 84 stains. Each pathologist was provided patient sex, biopsy site and gross sample description only. Slides were digitized using ScanScope®XT at 0.25 μm/pixel. Each evaluating pathologist was allowed to provide a diagnosis in three stages: initial (after reviewing the H&E image), intermediate (after reviewing images from the first batch of stains) and final diagnosis (after the second batch of stains if requested). GEP was performed using the only FDA-cleared test for this intended use, the Pathwork Tissue of Origin Test. No sample information was provided for GEP testing except for patient sex. Results were reported as the tumor tissue type with the highest similarity score. Results: In this feasibility study, GEP determined the correct primary site in 9 of the 10 cases (90%), compared to the IHC-guided method which determined the correct primary site for 32 of 50 case evaluations (average 64%, range 50% to 80%). The five pathologists directing the IHC-guided method ordered an average of 8.8 stains per case (range 1 to 18). GEP required an average of 3 slides per case (range 1 to 4). Conclusions: Results of the pilot study suggest that GEP provides correct primary site identification in a higher percentage of metastatic cases than IHC-guided methods, and uses less tissue. A larger comparative effectiveness study using this study design is needed to confirm the results.Virtual slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1749854104745508.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number110
JournalDiagnostic Pathology
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 21 2012

Fingerprint

Gene Expression Profiling
Coloring Agents
Neoplasms
Feasibility Studies
Paraffin
Formaldehyde
Pathologists
Biopsy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Histology
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of histopathology to gene expression profiling for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer. / Kulkarni, Anand; Pillai, Raji; Ezekiel, Ashley M.; Henner, W. David; Handorf, Charles R.

In: Diagnostic Pathology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 110, 21.08.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kulkarni, Anand ; Pillai, Raji ; Ezekiel, Ashley M. ; Henner, W. David ; Handorf, Charles R. / Comparison of histopathology to gene expression profiling for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer. In: Diagnostic Pathology. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 1.
@article{3f7cf186dee1448d840c605e83b1266b,
title = "Comparison of histopathology to gene expression profiling for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer",
abstract = "Background: Determining the primary site of metastatic cancer with confidence can be challenging. Pathologists commonly use a battery of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains to determine the primary site. Gene expression profiling (GEP) has found increasing use, particularly in the most difficult cases. In this pilot study, a direct comparison between GEP and IHC-guided methods was performed.Methods: Ten archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded metastatic tumor samples for which the primary site had been clinically determined were selected. Five pathologists who were blinded to the diagnosis were asked to determine the primary site using IHC and other stains selected from a panel of 84 stains. Each pathologist was provided patient sex, biopsy site and gross sample description only. Slides were digitized using ScanScope{\circledR}XT at 0.25 μm/pixel. Each evaluating pathologist was allowed to provide a diagnosis in three stages: initial (after reviewing the H&E image), intermediate (after reviewing images from the first batch of stains) and final diagnosis (after the second batch of stains if requested). GEP was performed using the only FDA-cleared test for this intended use, the Pathwork Tissue of Origin Test. No sample information was provided for GEP testing except for patient sex. Results were reported as the tumor tissue type with the highest similarity score. Results: In this feasibility study, GEP determined the correct primary site in 9 of the 10 cases (90{\%}), compared to the IHC-guided method which determined the correct primary site for 32 of 50 case evaluations (average 64{\%}, range 50{\%} to 80{\%}). The five pathologists directing the IHC-guided method ordered an average of 8.8 stains per case (range 1 to 18). GEP required an average of 3 slides per case (range 1 to 4). Conclusions: Results of the pilot study suggest that GEP provides correct primary site identification in a higher percentage of metastatic cases than IHC-guided methods, and uses less tissue. A larger comparative effectiveness study using this study design is needed to confirm the results.Virtual slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1749854104745508.",
author = "Anand Kulkarni and Raji Pillai and Ezekiel, {Ashley M.} and Henner, {W. David} and Handorf, {Charles R.}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1186/1746-1596-7-110",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
journal = "Diagnostic Pathology",
issn = "1746-1596",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of histopathology to gene expression profiling for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer

AU - Kulkarni, Anand

AU - Pillai, Raji

AU - Ezekiel, Ashley M.

AU - Henner, W. David

AU - Handorf, Charles R.

PY - 2012/8/21

Y1 - 2012/8/21

N2 - Background: Determining the primary site of metastatic cancer with confidence can be challenging. Pathologists commonly use a battery of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains to determine the primary site. Gene expression profiling (GEP) has found increasing use, particularly in the most difficult cases. In this pilot study, a direct comparison between GEP and IHC-guided methods was performed.Methods: Ten archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded metastatic tumor samples for which the primary site had been clinically determined were selected. Five pathologists who were blinded to the diagnosis were asked to determine the primary site using IHC and other stains selected from a panel of 84 stains. Each pathologist was provided patient sex, biopsy site and gross sample description only. Slides were digitized using ScanScope®XT at 0.25 μm/pixel. Each evaluating pathologist was allowed to provide a diagnosis in three stages: initial (after reviewing the H&E image), intermediate (after reviewing images from the first batch of stains) and final diagnosis (after the second batch of stains if requested). GEP was performed using the only FDA-cleared test for this intended use, the Pathwork Tissue of Origin Test. No sample information was provided for GEP testing except for patient sex. Results were reported as the tumor tissue type with the highest similarity score. Results: In this feasibility study, GEP determined the correct primary site in 9 of the 10 cases (90%), compared to the IHC-guided method which determined the correct primary site for 32 of 50 case evaluations (average 64%, range 50% to 80%). The five pathologists directing the IHC-guided method ordered an average of 8.8 stains per case (range 1 to 18). GEP required an average of 3 slides per case (range 1 to 4). Conclusions: Results of the pilot study suggest that GEP provides correct primary site identification in a higher percentage of metastatic cases than IHC-guided methods, and uses less tissue. A larger comparative effectiveness study using this study design is needed to confirm the results.Virtual slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1749854104745508.

AB - Background: Determining the primary site of metastatic cancer with confidence can be challenging. Pathologists commonly use a battery of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains to determine the primary site. Gene expression profiling (GEP) has found increasing use, particularly in the most difficult cases. In this pilot study, a direct comparison between GEP and IHC-guided methods was performed.Methods: Ten archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded metastatic tumor samples for which the primary site had been clinically determined were selected. Five pathologists who were blinded to the diagnosis were asked to determine the primary site using IHC and other stains selected from a panel of 84 stains. Each pathologist was provided patient sex, biopsy site and gross sample description only. Slides were digitized using ScanScope®XT at 0.25 μm/pixel. Each evaluating pathologist was allowed to provide a diagnosis in three stages: initial (after reviewing the H&E image), intermediate (after reviewing images from the first batch of stains) and final diagnosis (after the second batch of stains if requested). GEP was performed using the only FDA-cleared test for this intended use, the Pathwork Tissue of Origin Test. No sample information was provided for GEP testing except for patient sex. Results were reported as the tumor tissue type with the highest similarity score. Results: In this feasibility study, GEP determined the correct primary site in 9 of the 10 cases (90%), compared to the IHC-guided method which determined the correct primary site for 32 of 50 case evaluations (average 64%, range 50% to 80%). The five pathologists directing the IHC-guided method ordered an average of 8.8 stains per case (range 1 to 18). GEP required an average of 3 slides per case (range 1 to 4). Conclusions: Results of the pilot study suggest that GEP provides correct primary site identification in a higher percentage of metastatic cases than IHC-guided methods, and uses less tissue. A larger comparative effectiveness study using this study design is needed to confirm the results.Virtual slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1749854104745508.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865281039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865281039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1746-1596-7-110

DO - 10.1186/1746-1596-7-110

M3 - Article

VL - 7

JO - Diagnostic Pathology

JF - Diagnostic Pathology

SN - 1746-1596

IS - 1

M1 - 110

ER -