Table 3.
Case no. | Age (years) | Clinicopathological characteristics | HER2 status | |||||
Tumour size (cm) | Histology | Gradea | Metastatic | Metastases | Primary tumour | Explanationb | ||
1 | 34 | 1.0 | Ductal | 3 | Pleura | Amplified | Negative | True discrepancy |
2 | 52 | Not available | Ductal | 3 | Cerebrospinal fluid | Amplified | Negative | True discrepancy |
3 | 65 | 2.5 | Ductal | 3 | Pleura | Amplified | Negative | True amplification |
4 | 52 | 1.6 | Ductal | 3 | Pleura | Negative | Amplified | True amplification |
5 | 47 | 1.8 | Ductal | 3 | Ascites | Negative | Amplified | Borderline |
6 | 47 | Not available | Ductal | 3 | Pleura | Negative | Amplified | True amplification |
7 | 82 | 5.2 | Ductal | 2 | Pleura | Negative | Amplified | Borderline |
8 | 62 | 2.5 | Ductal | 3 | Lung | Negative | Amplified | True negative |
HER2, gene encoding human EGF-like receptor 2; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; true discrepancy, discrepancy remained unexplained; true amplification, amplification was found both in the metastasis and in the primary tumour after review; true negative, amplification was not confirmed after review; borderline, discrepancy was explained by interpretational difficulty due to a HER2/CEP17 ratio close to the threshold of 2 or less. aNuclear grade (1 to 3); bexplanations for the discrepancies of HER2 status.