Skip to main content
. 2014 Mar 25;6(2):684–707. doi: 10.3390/cancers6020684

Table 2.

Studies assessing HER2 discordance between primary tumor and HER2 on CTCs in recurrent breast cancer. ^ Includes only patients with metastatic breast cancer; * includes only patients with known HER2 primary tumor status. FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization; IF: immunofluorescence; Immunomag: immunomagnetic technique; RT-PCR: real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.

Author [ref.] Year No. of pts ^ No. (%) with CTCs CTC analysis HER2 assessment Rate of discordance*
HER2+→HER2 HER2→HER2+
de Albuquerque [66] 2012 32 24 (75%) Immunomag RT-PCR 8/9 (89%) 4/15 (27%)
Fehm [67] 2007 77 21 (27%) Immunomag IF and FISH, some with RT-PCR 2/3 (67%) 4/12 (33%)
Fehm [48] 2010 254 122 (48%) CellSearch® IF 13/31 (42%) 25/76 (33%)
229 90 (39%) AdnaTest® RT-PCR 13/22 (59%) 28/57 (49%)
Flores [68] 2010 75 75 (100%) CellSearch® FISH 1/45 (2%) 10/30 (33%)
Ignatiadis [37] 2011 39 23 (59%) CellSearch® IF 1/2 (50%) 13/21 (61%)
Ligthart [65] 2013 103 90 (87%) CellSearch® IF (automated) 29% 9%
Meng [41] 2004 24 24 (100%) Immunomag FISH - 9/24 (38%)
Munzone [60] 2010 76 57 (75%) CellSearch® IF 2/15 (13%) 6/42 (14%)
Pestrin [38] 2009 66 40 (61%) CellSearch® IF 5/12 (42%) 8/28 (29%)
Punnoose [34] 2010 38 29 (76%) CellSearch® IF 3/12 (25%) 2/17 (12%)
Somlo [69] 2011 22 18 (81%) MACS IF 3/5 (60%) 3/13 (23%)
Tewes [14] 2009 42 22 (52%) AdnaTest RT-PCR 3/5 (60%) 5/17 (29%)