HER-2/neu evaluation by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization in breast cancer: implications for daily laboratory practice.

BACKGROUND: HER-2/neu status was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) methods in more than 300 paraffin-embedded primary breast cancer samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HER-2/neu status was determined by FISH using the PathVysion kit (Vysis) and by IHC using either a monoclonal antibody CB11 or a cocktail of antibodies: the monoclonal TAB250 and the polyclonal pAb1. RESULTS: Of the 324 cases evaluable by IHC, 65 out of 318 (20%) and 24 out of 324 (7%) were scored as positive when using the antibody cocktail and the CB11, respectively. HER-2/neu gene amplification occured in 64 out of 324 cases (20%). Concordance of FISH and IHC was found in 285 out of 318 cases (90%) and 278 out of 324 cases (86%) using the cocktail and the CB11, respectively. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the use of a sensitive IHC method followed by confirmation of positive results by FISH considerably decreased the FISH costs and may become standard practice for HER-2/neu evaluation.

Polymeric and monomeric IgA response in serum and milk after parenteral cholera and oral typhoid vaccination

SCOPUS: ar.j

Significant variations of Anti-Müllerian hormone serum levels during pregnancy and during oral contraception

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Phenotypic characteristics of human type II alveolar epithelial cells suitable for antigen presentation to T lymphocytes.

Type II alveolar epithelial cells (AECII) are well known for their role in the innate immune system. More recently, it was proposed that they could play a role in the antigen presentation to T lymphocytes but contradictory results have been published both concerning their surface expressed molecules and the T lymphocyte responses in mixed lymphocyte cultures. The use of either AECII cell line or fresh cells could explain the observed discrepancies. Thus, this study aimed at defining the most relevant model of accessory antigen presenting cells by carefully comparing the two models for their expression of surface molecules necessary for efficient antigen presentation.

Doxifluridine and leucovorin: an oral treatment combination in advanced colorectal cancer

Purpose: This study was designed to test the activity and feasibility of an all-oral regimen of levo-leucovorin and doxifluridine (dFUR) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer and to establish whether the pharmacokinetics of dFUR and fluorouracil (FU) are affected by demographic and/or biologic parameters. Materials and Methods: One hundred eight patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer received orally administered levo-leucovorin 25 mg followed 2 hours later by dFUR 1,200 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5, with the cycle being repeated every 10 days. Results: Among 62 previously untreated patients, two complete responses (CRs) and 18 partial responses (PRs) were observed (overall response rate, 32%; 95% confidence interval, 21% to 45%). The median response duration was 4 months (range, 2 to 13) and the median survival time, 14 months. Among 46 pretreated patients, there were three CRs and three PRs (response rate, 13%; 95% confidence interval, 5% to 26%). In this group of patients, the median response duration was 4 months (range, 1 to 12) and the median survival time, 12 months. No toxic deaths were observed. The only World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 to 4 side effect was diarrhea (32 patients). Conclusion: This regimen is active in previously untreated colorectal cancer patients and combines good compliance with safety. Limited but definite efficacy was also detected in the patients previously treated with FU, which suggests incomplete cross- resistance between the two drugs. The pharmacokinetic results suggest that the conversion rate of dFUR to FU increases between days 1 and 5, but that FU levels remain low in comparison to those measured after classical FU therapy. Under the experimental conditions used in this study, the interpatient variability of pharmacokinetic parameters remains largely unexplained by the tested variables.