Accuracy of testing for HER2

[AlaskaAngel]

I was diagnosed in 2002 at a major cancer center with IHC only, and at that time questions were just being raised as to the accuracy of testing for HER2. It looks like an attempt to standardize the quality of testing at a higher level may be gradually being put in place. However, I do think we need to recognize that this has taken a while and it is hard to tell whose testing has been accurate.

I will try posting a poll on the main forum to get some idea where we all are in terms of HER2 testing. Please consider participating in it.

http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=10381

AlaskaAngel

[tousled1]

I know that if you are tested by IHC and your score is 2 then you should have pathology perform testing using the FISH which is the preferred method. In order to get into clinical trials you must test positive by FISH.

[AlaskaAngel]

Since Herceptin has become more commonly used for HER2 we tend to think of the importance of confirmation of HER2 status mostly in terms of whether someone is going to get Herceptin -- especially since most chemo given for bc now includes an anthracycline anyway. But patients and doctors make a lot of other decisions about treatment based partly on whether or not they believe the patient is or isn't HER2 positive.... more scanning, more anxiety, more expense...

One onc I saw said she would not test me for FISH unless I was definitely going to do Herceptin. While I understand that point of view because FISH is more expensive in the short-term, I think there are other very good reasons to let people know for sure if they genuinely are HER2 -- or not.

AlaskaAngel

[AlaskaAngel]

http://webcenters.netscape.compuserv...0907279601.htm