HER2 Testing Accuracy
 

See Articles Forum post on Accuracy of HER2 testing for reason for poll.

(I hope I get this right as I haven't used the poll option for quite a while...)

Thanks

AlaskaAngel

I had both tests, but don't know who examined them. IHC+++. I do know that when a sample was sent to Sloan Kettering, they could not retest the FISH. Whoever did it first, found it postive. 7.6, I think.

It makes me nervous when I see that some people were only tested using FISH. It is possible to be negative by FISH, but positve (3+) by IHC. The tests measure Her2 in two different ways. I was negative by FISH, but 3+ by IHC and I would have missed out on Herceptin if my Onc had only relied on FISH. (I had both tests and treatment at a major NYC cancer center).

Jen

My onc did IHC first: 2+

He then sent it for FISH testing: 8.6

I guess if IHC comes back as a 2, more testing is needed.
As of about a year ago, my onc felt that FISH was more reliable, and stressed the fact that testing needs to be done at a large lab where testing is frequently done.

Usually if you are tested by IHC and it is 2+ or more you are then tested via FISH method. For HER2 clinical trials I believe that you must test HER2+ by FISH method.

2+ / 3+
 

Here in the UK, they do the FISH test if you are in the IHC 2+ zone (as I was). If you are 3+, I don't think they do.

We seem to be a long way behind you. For example, I asked my onc about doing the Ki67 (proliferation test) and the Oncotype test. He said it was not protocol yet - lack of funds, if you ask me!

So I am relying on their current knowledge which is not to prescribe chemo or herceptin for node negative, vascular negative, hormone positive, small weakly positive HER2 tumours in post-menopausal women. I just hope they are right!

Mcgle

insurance coverage for retesting
 

I thought I would tack this news article here, in case it is helpful to anyone who happens to have this coverage, or finds it meaningful:


<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->http://webcenters.netscape.compuser.../0907279601.htm
<!-- / message -->