The age of paraffin block influences biomarker levels in archival breast cancer samples

Chen,Hong; Fang,Qing‑Qing; Wang,Bo

doi:10.3892/ol.2020.11586

The age of paraffin block influences biomarker levels in archival breast cancer samples

Authors:
- Hong Chen
- Qing‑Qing Fang
- Bo Wang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310014, P.R. China, Department of Plastic Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310016, P.R. China, Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310003, P.R. China
Published online on: May 4, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11586
Pages: 525-532
Copyright: © Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the influence of paraffin block age on biomarker levels in archival breast cancer samples. Tissue blocks from five different block age groups were assessed using immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. The difference in Q scores for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor expression levels between original tests and repeated tests were significant for core needle biopsies prepared 10 years ago. The signal intensities of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and the centromere of chromosome 17 decreased with the age of the paraffin block. Moreover, 6 samples exhibited a negative shift in progesterone receptor Q scores for core needle biopsy samples with a Q score of 2. In conclusion, the age of paraffin blocks had significant effects on the expression levels of estrogen and progesterone receptors in core needle biopsies prepared 10 years ago. The results showed that samples with an age >7 years were not suitable for fluorescence in situ hybridization and interpretation of progesterone receptor levels for repeated core needle biopsy samples with a Q score of 2 requires caution.

View Figures

View References

1	Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E and Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 61:69–90. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Yildiz-Aktas IZ, Dabbs DJ and Bhargava R: The effect of cold ischemic time on the immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 expression in invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 25:1098–1105. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Barnes DM, Millis RR, Beex LV, Thorpe SM and Leake RE: Increased use of immunohistochemistry for oestrogen receptor measurement in mammary carcinoma: The need for quality assurance. Eur J Cancer. 34:1677–1682. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, Hayes DF and Bast RC Jr; American Society of Clinical Oncology, : American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 25:5287–5312. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Dowsett M, Allred C, Knox J, Quinn E, Salter J, Wale C, Cuzick J, Houghton J, Williams N, Mallon E, et al: Relationship between quantitative estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) status with recurrence in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial. J Clin Oncol. 26:1059–1065. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Rhodes A, Jasani B, Balaton AJ, Barnes DM and Miller KD: Frequency of oestrogen and progesterone receptor positivity by immunohistochemical analysis in 7016 breast carcinomas: Correlation with patient age, assay sensitivity, threshold value, and mammographic screening. J Clin Pathol. 53:688–696. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, Dowsett M, Fitzgibbons PL, Hanna WM, Langer A, et al American Society of Clinical Oncology; College of American Pathologists, : American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 25:118–145. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Khoury T, Sait S, Hwang H, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding G, Tan D and Kulkarni S: Delay to formalin fixation effect on breast biomarkers. Mod Pathol. 22:1457–1467. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Moatamed NA, Nanjangud G, Pucci R, Lowe A, Shintaku IP, Shapourifar-Tehrani S, Rao N, Lu DY and Apple SK: Effect of ischemic time, fixation time, and fixative type on HER2/neu immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization results in breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 136:754–761. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Portier BP, Wang Z, Downs-Kelly E, Rowe JJ, Patil D, Lanigan C, Budd GT, Hicks DG, Rimm DL and Tubbs RR: Delay to formalin fixation ‘cold ischemia time’: Effect on ERBB2 detection by in-situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 26:1–9. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Reddy JC, Reimann JD, Anderson SM and Klein PM: Concordance between central and local laboratory HER2 testing from a community-based clinical study. Clin Breast Cancer. 7:153–157. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Nuovo AJ, Garofalo M, Mikhail A, Nicol AF, Vianna-Andrade C and Nuovo GJ: The effect of aging of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues on the in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry signals in cervical lesions. Diagn Mol Pathol. 22:164–173. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Goldstein NS, Ferkowicz M, Odish E, Mani A and Hastah F: Minimum formalin fixation time for consistent estrogen receptor immunohistochemical staining of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 120:86–92. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Allison KH, Harvey BE, Mangu PB, Bartlett JMS, Bilous M, Ellis IO, Fitzgibbons P, Hanna W, et al: Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. J Clin Oncol. 36:2105–2122. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Moelans CB, Oostenrijk D, Moons MJ and van Diest PJ: Formaldehyde substitute fixatives: Effects on nucleic acid preservation. J Clin Pathol. 64:960–967. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Dapson RW: Glyoxal fixation: How it works and why it only occasionally needs antigen retrieval. Biotech Histochem. 82:161–166. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Dapson RW: Macromolecular changes caused by formalin fixation and antigen retrieval. Biotech Histochem. 82:133–140. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Perlmutter MA, Best CJM, Gillespie JW, Gathright Y, González S, Velasco A, Linehan WM, Emmert-Buck MR and Chuaqui RF: Comparison of snap freezing versus ethanol fixation for gene expression profiling of tissue specimens. J Mol Diagn. 6:371–377. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Scicchitano MS, Dalmas DA, Bertiaux MA, Anderson SM, Turner LR, Thomas RA, Mirable R and Boyce RW: Preliminary comparison of quantity, quality, and microarray performance of RNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, and unfixed frozen tissue samples. J Histochem Cytochem. 54:1229–1237. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Nirmalan NJ, Harnden P, Selby PJ and Banks RE: Development and validation of a novel protein extraction methodology for quantitation of protein expression in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues using western blotting. J Pathol. 217:497–506. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Hewitt SM, Lewis FA, Cao Y, Conrad RC, Cronin M, Danenberg KD, Goralski TJ, Langmore JP, Raja RG, Williams PM, et al: Tissue handling and specimen preparation in surgical pathology: Issues concerning the recovery of nucleic acids from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 132:1929–1935. 2008.PubMed/NCBI
22	Chung JY, Braunschweig T, Williams R, Guerrero N, Hoffmann KM, Kwon M, Song YK, Libutti SK and Hewitt SM: Factors in tissue handling and processing that impact RNA obtained from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. J Histochem Cytochem. 56:1033–1042. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Cronin M, Pho M, Dutta D, Stephans JC, Shak S, Kiefer MC, Esteban JM and Baker JB: Measurement of gene expression in archival paraffin-embedded tissues: Development and performance of a 92-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay. Am J Pathol. 164:35–42. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Fergenbaum JH, Garcia-Closas M, Hewitt SM, Lissowska J, Sakoda LC and Sherman ME: Loss of antigenicity in stored sections of breast cancer tissue microarrays. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 13:667–672. 2004.PubMed/NCBI
25	Wester K, Wahlund E, Sundström C, Ranefall P, Bengtsson E, Russell PJ, Ow KT, Malmström PU and Busch C: Paraffin section storage and immunohistochemistry. Effects of time, temperature, fixation, and retrieval protocol with emphasis on p53 protein and MIB1 antigen. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 8:61–70. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Xie R, Chung JY, Ylaya K, Williams RL, Guerrero N, Nakatsuka N, Badie C and Hewitt SM: Factors influencing the degradation of archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections. J Histochem Cytochem. 59:356–365. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	van den Broek LJ and van de Vijver MJ: Assessment of problems in diagnostic and research immunohistochemistry associated with epitope instability in stored paraffin sections. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 8:316–321. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Jacobs TW, Prioleau JE, Stillman IE and Schnitt SJ: Loss of tumor marker-immunostaining intensity on stored paraffin slides of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 88:1054–1059. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	DiVito KA, Charette LA, Rimm DL and Camp RL: Long-term preservation of antigenicity on tissue microarrays. Lab Invest. 84:1071–1078. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Mirlacher M, Kasper M, Storz M, Knecht Y, Dürmüller U, Simon R, Mihatsch MJ and Sauter G: Influence of slide aging on results of translational research studies using immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 17:1414–1420. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Stoler MH: Toward objective cervical cancer screening: Maybe the eyes do have it. Am J Clin Pathol. 134:5–6. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Copete M, Garratt J, Gilks B, Pilavdzic D, Berendt R, Bigras G, Mitchell S, Lining LA, Cheung C and Torlakovic EE: Inappropriate calibration and optimisation of pan-keratin (pan-CK) and low molecular weight keratin (LMWCK) immunohistochemistry tests: Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC) experience. J Clin Pathol. 64:220–225. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Denton KJ, Bergeron C, Klement P, Trunk MJ, Keller T and Ridder R; European CINtec Cytology Study Group, : The sensitivity and specificity of p16(INK4a) cytology vs HPV testing for detecting high-grade cervical disease in the triage of ASC-US and LSIL pap cytology results. Am J Clin Pathol. 134:12–21. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS, Hayes M, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (Unabridged Version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 134:e48–e72. 2010.PubMed/NCBI