Clinical utility of RT-PCR in assessing HER 2 gene expression versus traditional IHC and FISH in breast cancer patients.

Background: IHC and FISH are used for categorizing HER 2 status in breast cancer at the protein and DNA level, respectively. HER 2 expression at the RNA level is quantitative, cheaper, easier to standardize and free from interobserver variation.

Methods: 115 consecutive patients were tested by IHC, FISH and RT-PCR (test cohort). Assuming FISH result to be the response variable, ROC curves for RT-PCR ratio were analyzed to label HER 2 negative, equivocal and positive cases as RT-PCR score 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Inter-relationships between RT-PCR, IHC and FISH were defined. 'Clinical benefit' of a test was defined as proportion of patients labeled unequivocally as HER 2 positive or negative. Population for 1 year was simulated constraint to previous reports of HER 2 positivity and IHC category distribution by a meta-analysis of previous studies that evaluated concordance between IHC and FISH to determine HER 2 status (simulation cohort). Four diagnostic pathways in the simulation cohort were defined-(1) initial IHC, followed by FISH (conventional pathway); (2) initial RT-PCR, followed by FISH; (3) initial IHC, followed by RT-PCR and then by FISH; (4) initial RT-PCR, followed by IHC and then by FISH. The clinical benefit of IHC and RT-PCR in the four pathways was analyzed and sensitivity analysis for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and cost-benefit comapring RT-PCR against IHC, both as first-line tests and among those with IHC score 2 as a reflex second-line test was performed by the Monte Carlo technique.

Findings: 115 patients comprised the study population. While none with IHC score of 0 or 1 was FISH positive for HER 2, all cases with IHC score of 3 were FISH positive. 43 cases were assigned IHC score of 2. Thus, 72 patients benefited from the initial IHC testing [clinical benefit 62.6%], with the overall concordance between IHC and FISH being 100% for those with IHC score of 0, 1 and 3 (conclusive IHC categories). For RT-PCR with 100% concordance, 15.7% (115-97 = 18) patients would have benefited from RT-PCR testing if it was used as a first-line test. If RT-PCR would have been used as a second-line test among those with IHC score 2 (n = 43), then only 6 patients would have been assigned a conclusive RT-PCR category (category 1 or 3) translating to a clinical benefit of 14% (6/43) as a second-line test. As a second-line test it had 51% probability to prove more cost-effective than the conventional pathway, provided the cost of RT-PCR was 0.4 times the cost of IHC. Also in a three-step pathway, RT-PCR upfront would have 56% probability of higher cost-benefit provided the cost of RT-PCR was 0.1 times the cost of IHC.

Conclusion: RT-PCR results were found to be suboptimal to IHC in terms of discriminative ability and clinical benefit; thus, it is unlikely to replace IHC as a first-line test in the near future.