dc.contributor.author
Conde, Esther
dc.contributor.author
Suárez Gauthier, Ana
dc.contributor.author
Benito, Amparo
dc.contributor.author
Garrido, Pilar
dc.contributor.author
García Campelo, Rosario
dc.contributor.author
Biscuola, Michele
dc.contributor.author
Paz-Ares, Luis
dc.contributor.author
Hardisson, David
dc.contributor.author
Castro, Javier de
dc.contributor.author
Camacho, María del Carmen
dc.contributor.author
Rodríguez Abreu, Delvys
dc.contributor.author
Abdulkader, Ihab
dc.contributor.author
Ramírez Ruz, J. (José)
dc.contributor.author
Reguart, Noemí
dc.contributor.author
Salido Galeote, Marta
dc.contributor.author
Pijuan, Lara
dc.contributor.author
Arriola Aperribay, Edurne
dc.contributor.author
Sanz, Julián
dc.contributor.author
Folgueras, Victoria
dc.contributor.author
Villanueva, Noemí
dc.contributor.author
Gómez Román, Javier
dc.contributor.author
Hidalgo, Manuel
dc.contributor.author
López Ríos, Fernando
dc.date.issued
2017-12-15T18:28:22Z
dc.date.issued
2017-12-15T18:28:22Z
dc.date.issued
2014-09-23
dc.date.issued
2017-12-15T18:28:22Z
dc.identifier
https://hdl.handle.net/2445/118753
dc.description.abstract
Background: Based on the excellent results of the clinical trials with ALK-inhibitors, the importance of accurately identifying ALK positive lung cancer has never been greater. However, there are increasing number of recent publications addressing discordances between FISH and IHC. The controversy is further fuelled by the different regulatory approvals. This situation prompted us to investigate two ALK IHC antibodies (using a novel ultrasensitive detection-amplification kit) and an automated ALK FISH scanning system (FDA-cleared) in a series of non-small cell lung cancer tumor samples. Methods: Forty-seven ALK FISH-positive and 56 ALK FISH-negative NSCLC samples were studied. All specimens were screened for ALK expression by two IHC antibodies (clone 5A4 from Novocastra and clone D5F3 from Ventana) and for ALK rearrangement by FISH (Vysis ALK FISH break-apart kit), which was automatically captured and scored by using Bioview's automated scanning system. Results: All positive cases with the IHC antibodies were FISH-positive. There was only one IHC-negative case with both antibodies which showed a FISH-positive result. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the IHC in comparison with FISH were 98% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: The specificity of these ultrasensitive IHC assays may obviate the need for FISH confirmation in positive IHC cases. However, the likelihood of false negative IHC results strengthens the case for FISH testing, at least in some situations
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107200
dc.relation
PLoS One, 2014, vol. 9, num. 9, p. 107200
dc.relation
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107200
dc.rights
cc-by (c) Conde, Esther et al., 2014
dc.rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Articles publicats en revistes (Fonaments Clínics)
dc.subject
Càncer de pulmó
dc.title
Accurate Identification of ALK Positive Lung Carcinoma Patients: Novel FDA-Cleared Automated Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Scanning System and Ultrasensitive Immunohistochemistry
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion