The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3+ (uniform, intense membrane staining of > 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than six HER2 gene copies per nucleus or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1+, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.

Background: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. Methods: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites—testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian—were critically reviewed. Results: For testicular cancer, α-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. α-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 μg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node–negative patients. CA15-3/BR27–29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. Conclusions: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

No abstract

Purpose.—To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker. Methods.—The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations. Results.—Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy. Recommendations.—The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3+ (uniform, intense membrane staining of > 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than 6 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1+, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or a FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.

Background: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. Methods: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 4 cancer sites—liver, bladder, cervical, and gastric—were critically reviewed. Results: α-Fetoprotein (AFP) may be used in conjunction with abdominal ultrasound for early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis associated with hepatitis B or C virus infection. AFP concentrations >200 μg/L in cirrhotic patients with typical hypervascular lesions >2 cm in size are consistent with HCC. After a diagnosis of HCC, posttreatment monitoring with AFP is recommended as an adjunct to imaging, especially in the absence of measurable disease. Although several urine markers have been proposed for bladder cancer, none at present can replace routine cystoscopy and cytology in the management of patients with this malignancy. Some may, however, be used as complementary adjuncts to direct more effective use of clinical procedures. Although carcinoembryonic antigen and CA 19-9 have been proposed for use gastric cancer and squamous cell carcinoma antigen for use in cervical cancer, none of these markers can currently be recommended for routine clinical use. Conclusions: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers for patients with liver, bladder, cervical, or gastric cancers.

ObjectiveTo present an update of the European Group on Tumor Markers guidelines for serum markers in epithelial ovarian cancer.MethodsSystematic literature survey from 2008 to 2013. The articles were evaluated by level of evidence and strength of recommendation.ResultsBecause of its low sensitivity (50–62% for early stage epithelial ovarian cancer) and limited specificity (94–98.5%), cancer antigen (CA) 125 (CA125) is not recommended as a screening test in asymptomatic women. The Risk of Malignancy Index, which includes CA125, transvaginal ultrasound, and menopausal status, is recommended for the differential diagnosis of a pelvic mass. Because human epididymis protein 4 has been reported to have superior specificity to CA125, especially in premenopausal women, it may be considered either alone or as part of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm, in the differential diagnosis of pelvic masses, especially in such women. CA125 should be used to monitor response to first-line chemotherapy using the previously published criteria of the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup, that is, at least a 50% reduction of a pretreatment sample of 70 kU/L or greater. The value of CA125 in posttherapy surveillance is less clear. Although a prospective randomized trial concluded that early administration of chemotherapy based on increasing CA125 levels had no effect on survival, European Group on Tumor Markers state that monitoring with CA125 in this situation should occur, especially if the patient is a candidate for secondary cytoreductive surgery.ConclusionsAt present, CA125 remains the most important biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancer, excluding tumors of mucinous origin.

Although generally robust, immunoassays remain vulnerable to occasional analytical errors that may have serious implications for patient care. Sporadic errors that occur as a result of properties of the specimen are particularly difficult to detect. They may be due to the presence of cross-reacting substances, antianalyte antibodies or antireagent antibodies, all of which may lead to erroneously high or low results. Low results may be observed for tumour markers due to high-dose hooking in the presence of very high analyte concentrations. Erroneous results can occur unexpectedly with any specimen and there is no practical means of identifying specimens likely to cause problems in immunoassays. The possibility of interference should always be considered when results do not appear to be in accord with the clinical picture. Errors can occur in even the best-managed laboratories and their early investigation is always desirable. If there is any doubt whatsoever about a result, clinical staff should be encouraged to contact the laboratory. Investigations for possible interference that can be undertaken in most laboratories include testing for linearity on dilution, recovery experiments, treatment with heterophilic blocking tubes and confirmation using a different method. It may be desirable to consult specialist laboratories if more complex studies are necessary. Informing clinical and laboratory staff of the everpresent possibility of unexpected interference, ensuring brief clinical details are available to laboratory staff, and above all facilitating excellent communication between laboratory and clinical staff are key to minimizing the risk of clinical mismanagement due to unsuspected interference.

Background: Increasing interest in implementing the practice of evidence-based medicine in oncology has encouraged the development of clinical guidelines, many of which include recommendations about the appropriate use of serum tumor markers. Methods: Recent national and international guidelines relating to the use of tumor markers in germ cell, colorectal, breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, neuroendocrine, and thyroid cancers were identified from the scientific literature and other sources and tabulated. Results: Guideline recommendations developed by national and international groups and relating to the use of tumor markers for specific cancers are reviewed and compared, considering the recommendations made for their use in screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of therapy. Potential advantages and disadvantages of clinical guidelines, how best to implement them, and means of auditing their effectiveness are also considered. Conclusions: Excellent clinical guidelines, including recommendations for the most appropriate use of tumor markers, are already available for many cancers. Many questions relating to optimal use of these important tests remain to be answered, but current guidelines already contain much valuable information and advice. Further dissemination and implementation of the guidelines should encourage better use of tumor markers in clinical practice. Careful audit studies are also required to establish the impact of these guidelines on the practice of evidence-based medicine.