<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJPathology</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Pathology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2164-6775</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojpathology.2015.54014</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJPathology-58818</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  HER-2/Neu Status in Gastric Carcinomas in a Series of Egyptian Patients and Its Relation to Ki-67 Expression
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>aba</surname><given-names>El-Gendi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Iman</surname><given-names>Talaat</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mona</surname><given-names>Abdel-Hadi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>monaabd@hotmail.com(AE)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>17</day><month>08</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>101</fpage><lpage>113</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>20</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>14</month>	<year>August</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>17</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Objective: HER-2/neu status in gastric carcinomas (GCs) has not been studied before in the Egyptian population. Materials and Methods: Seventy-three GCs were evaluated for the expression of HER-2/neu and Ki-67 using immunohistochemistry (IHC). Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) was done for HER2/neu IHC score 2+ cases. Results: Out of the 73 gastric carcinomas, 23 (31.5%) were score 0, 17 (23.3%) were score 1+, 23 (31.5%) were score 2+, and 10 (13.7%) were score 3+. FISH analysis revealed that the HER-2/neu gene was amplified in 11 out of the 23 cases (47.8%) scored 2+ by IHC. Therefore, the overall HER-2/neu positivity rate was 28.8% and it was significantly associated with higher T-stage and lymphovascular invasion (LVI). The Ki-67 expression rate ranged between 10% and 100%, with 84.9% of the cases (n = 62) featuring high Ki-67 scores. High Ki-67 score was significantly associated with male sex, tumor grade, and number of positive nodes. HER-2/neu protein expression correlated significantly with Ki-67 score. Twenty tumors showed combined HER-2/neu positivity and high Ki-67 score and were significantly associated with higher T-stage and occurrence of LVI, implying a more aggressive behavior. Conclusions: The rate of HER-2/neu positive GCs in our series simulates universal rates, thereby mandating routine evaluation of HER-2/neu status in all GCs submitted to our laboratory to benefit from trastuzumab therapy. Further studies on a larger number of GCs are required to prove that the concurrent HER-2/neu positivity and high Ki-67 score are markers of worse prognosis.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Egypt</kwd><kwd> FISH</kwd><kwd> Gastric Carcinoma</kwd><kwd> HER-2/Neu</kwd><kwd> Immunohistochemistry</kwd><kwd> Ki-67</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Gastric carcinoma (GC) contributes to 10% of cancer deaths worldwide with a case of fatality ratio of 70% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref1">1</xref>] . According to the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, GC in both sexes represented 1.8% of the total cancers in the period from 2002 to 2010 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref2">2</xref>] . And according to the Globocan 2012, the estimated GC cumulative risk incidence among all ages and both sexes in Egypt is 0.3%, while the estimated cumulative mortality risk is 0.26% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>The pathogenesis of gastric cancer involves dietary, infectious, occupational, genetic and preneoplastic risk factors. A long-lasting chronic gastritis initiates a cascade of reactive changes; whereby the normal gastric mucosa is transformed to chronic atrophic gastritis and develops multifocal atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, followed by the appearance of dysplasia and finally invasive carcinoma. However, evidence is lacking for an equivalent sequence of events in the diffuse-type gastric cancer, a key step in the development of which is the loss of E-cadherin, despite the common development on a background of increased regenerative processes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>Introducing new therapies in the treatment of GC is imperative as the currently available chemotherapeutics are not very effective [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (coded by the ERBB2 gene) gain of function is associated with increased cell motility, invasiveness, angiogenesis, resistance to apoptosis, and metastatic potential [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref6">6</xref>] . A meta- analysis showed that the overall prevalence of HER2/neu overexpression in GCs was 19% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>The multinational trastuzumab for gastric cancer (ToGA) clinical trial demonstrated increased survival in HER-2/neu-over expressing GCs when trastuzumab was added to conventional treatment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref8">8</xref>] .</p><p>In addition, the prognosis of patients with GC can be influenced by the alteration of oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes, determining alterations of the kinetics of cell proliferation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref9">9</xref>] . Ki-67 is a nuclear non-histone protein, which is required for maintaining the cell cycle [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref10">10</xref>] . Ki-67 monoclonal antibodies detect a nuclear antigen expressed exclusively in the G1, S, G2 and mitosis phases of the cell cycle, making this antigen an excellent marker for determining the proliferation of a given cell population and the aggressiveness of malignancies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref11">11</xref>] .</p><p>Although HER-2/neu testing on breast cancer is a routine in our hospital, its testing on GC is not routinely done. By this study we aimed at determining the frequency of HER-2/neu positive GC in our hospital which was a referral center in the city of Alexandria, intending to make the assessment of HER-2/neu status as well as the treatment by trastuzumab a standard of care among our patients. We also aimed to determine whether the expression of HER-2/neu was associated with a more aggressive behavior by its correlation with Ki-67 expression.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials &amp; Methods</title><p>This study was approved by Alexandria University, Faculty of Medicine Research Ethics Committee. Seventy-three cases of gastrectomy (whether total or partial) for carcinomas were retrieved retrospectively from the archives of the Pathology department between January 2009 and December 2013. Cases were consecutively accrued with exclusion of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy and those for whom complete clinical information was lacking. Data about age and sex of the patients, anatomical site of the tumors, lymph node status as well as details of gross examination were obtained from the clinical sheets and pathology reports. All microscopic slides of each case were reviewed and the most representative section with the maximum tumor bulk was selected for immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. The corresponding tissue block was retrieved and 5 micron sections were cut from each block, one for Hematoxylin and Eosin staining and 3 sections on coated slides for IHC and FISH.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Histopathology</title><p>All H&amp;E sections were reviewed for tumor typing and grading according to the WHO classification system of gastrointestinal tumors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref12">12</xref>] . The pathological stage of the tumor was established according to the 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref13">13</xref>] . Further data were also recorded such as lymphovascular invasion (LVI), the presence of mucin pools, signet ring cells as well as the presence of necrosis.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Immunohistochemical Staining</title><p>Both primary antibodies were purchased from Lab Vision Corporation (Neo Markers, Fremont, USA); HER-2/c- erbB-2/neu Ab-17, mouse monoclonal antibody (diluted at 1:200) and Ki-67, RM-9106-S0, rabbit monoclonal antibody (diluted at 1:200). The detection system kit (UltraVision detection system) was purchased from Lab Vision Corporation (Neo Markers, Fremont, USA).</p><p>The immunostaining procedure was done following the streptavidin-biotin-immunoenzymatic antigen detection method, performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Slides were deparaffinized, rehydrated, and heated in a microwave oven containing 0.01 mol/L citrate buffer (pH 6.0) for 10 min at 100˚C for antigen retrieval, cooled for 20 min and washed with a buffer solution. Peroxidase was then applied for 5 min and washed twice with a buffer solution for 5 min. Primary antibodies were then applied overnight. The antigen antibody reaction was visualized by the UltraVision detection system. Immunohistochemical reactions were developed with diaminobenzidine and sections counterstained with Harris hematoxylin. Negative controls (where the primary antibody has been omitted) were included in all runs. Appropriate positive controls (breast carcinoma for HER-2/neu and colonic carcinoma for Ki-67) were also included in all runs.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Scoring of HER-2/Neu IHC</title><p>The samples were analyzed using standard criteria for HER-2/neu positivity. Positivity was assessed as brown cell membrane staining of malignant cells. All slides were scored independently by the 3 authors according to the Gastric Cancer Scoring System (GCSS) for Surgical Specimens [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref14">14</xref>] as follows:</p><p>Score 0⁄negative: No staining or membrane staining in &lt;10% of invasive tumor cells.</p><p>Score 1+⁄negative: Faint/barely perceptible membrane staining in ≥10% of invasive tumor cells; cells are only stained in part of their membranes.</p><p>Score 2+⁄equivocal: Weak to moderate complete or basolateral membrane staining in ≥10% of invasive tumor cells.</p><p>Score 3+⁄positive: Moderate to strong complete or basolateral membrane staining in ≥10% of invasive tumor cells.</p><p>All the cases that were given a score of 2+ were further assessed using FISH.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Evaluation</title><p>FISH was performed using the US FDA approved Path Vysion<sup>&#174;</sup> HER-2/neu DNA Probe (Vysis {Abbott} Molecular Inc., Des Plaines, IL, USA), which is a dual-colored probe comprising a locus specific identifier (LSI) HER-2/neu Spectrum Orange which spans HER-2/neu and a centromere enumeration probe (CEP) 17 Spectrum Green which hybridizes to the alpha satellite DNA located at the centromere of the chromosome. The test was carried out on thin paraffin sections using the paraffin pretreatment reagent kit II (Vysis Inc.). FISH procedure was carried out as per manufacturer’s instructions in package insert. Briefly, samples were deparaffinized and pretreated to maximize tissue permeability and hybridization. After denaturation of both DNA sample and probe, hybridization of the probe to its target DNA took place. After hybridization, unbound probe was removed via rapid wash procedure followed by application of counterstain to detect the cell nucleus. Analysis was performed via enumeration of probe signals within the cell nuclei. Hybridization procedure was performed using co-hybri- dization method using the HYbrite Denaturation/Hybridization Unit (VysisInc). The melt temperature of the HYbrite system was set to 73˚C and the melt time to 5 minutes. The hybridization temperature was set to 37˚C and the hybridization time to 20 hours.</p><p>FISH signals were analyzed using BX51/61 Olympus fluorescent microscope equipped with a suitable set of filters including: DAPI single band pass, dual band pass FITC/TRITC and triple band pass (FITC/TRITC/DAPI) (Olympus, UK LTD). The fluorescent microscope is attached to a digital camera and results were interpreted using cytovision FISH software (Applied Imaging). The fields containing invasive tumor component with non- overlapping tumor nuclei with clearly visible distinct signals were chosen for interpretation. A minimum of 100 interphase nuclei for each case were counted. The total number of red and green signals counted in the nuclei was recorded and then ratio of the HER-2/neu (red) to CEP 17 (green) signals was calculated. Fields showing excess background signals or auto-fluorescence masking the nuclear signals were not evaluated. A ratio of HER- 2/neu to CEP17 signals ≥ 2 was reported as amplification, a ratio &lt; 2 was reported as non-amplification, while a ratio at or near the cutoff point (1.8 and 2.2) was taken as an equivocal result. A recounting of additional 20 tumor nuclei was done for the equivocal cases.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Scoring of Ki-67 IHC</title><p>The samples were analyzed following the recommendations from the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref15">15</xref>] ; whereby positive Ki-67 staining was defined as only positive nuclear staining, regardless of the staining intensity. Scoring involved the counting of at least 1000 nuclei at high-power (&#215;40 objective). The Ki-67 score (Ki-67 index or proliferation index) was expressed as the percentage of positively staining nuclei among the total number of nuclei in the area scored.</p><p>For proper grouping of results, cases were then categorized into: GCs with high Ki-67 score (&gt;20%) and GCs with low Ki-67 score (≤20%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref9">9</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Statistical Analysis</title><p>The raw data were coded and entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences ( SPSS /version 20) SPSS system files (SPSS package version 18). Analysis and interpretation of data were conducted.</p><p>Quantitative data were described using the median (Mdn), minimum and maximum as well as the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). Qualitative data were described using the number and percentage. Univariate analyses including: Mann Whitney test and Kruskal Wallis test were used to test the significance of results of quantitative variables. Chi-Square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to test the significance of results of qualitative variables. Linear correlation was conducted using Spearman Rho correlation coefficient to show correlation between HER-2/neu IHC and Ki-67 among the studied patients. The significance of the results was at the 5% level of significance.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>This study included 73 gastric carcinoma cases (41 males and 32 females). Patients’ age ranged from 23 to 81 years with a mean age of 51.6 &#177; 12.1 years. The clinical and pathological features of the 73 cases included in the present series are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Immunohistochemical Study of HER-2/Neu Protein Expression</title><p>Out of the 73 gastric carcinomas included in the study, 23 (31.5%) were score 0, 17 (23.3%) score 1+, 23 (31.5%) score 2+, and 10 (13.7%) were score 3+. HER-2/neuimmunoreactivity was weaker or absent in mucinous foci of intestinal type gastric carcinoma. Lymphovascular neoplastic emboli featured HER-2/neu immuno- staining similar to the primary tumor.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. HER-2/Neu Gene Amplification Study by FISH</title><p>HER-2/neu gene amplification was analyzed by FISH in the 23 cases scored 2+ by IHC. HER-2/neu gene was amplified in 11 out of the 23 cases (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>), two cases revealed equivocal FISH results, and ten cases showed no amplification (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). The positive amplification rate of HER-2/neu gene among the HER2-neu IHC score 2+ cases was 47.8%.</p><p>After FISH analysis, 21 cases were HER-2/neu positive, thereby attaining an overall positivity rate of 28.8%.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Relationship between HER-2/Neu Status and the Different Clinicopathological Parameters</title><p>A statistically significant relation was found between HER-2/neu positivity (IHC 3+/ IHC 2+ FISH positive) and the pathologic T-stage (T1, 2vs T3, 4) (P = 0.026) as well as between HER-2/neu positivity and the presence of LVI (P = 0.02). No statistically significant relationship was found between HER-2/neu positivity and any of the other clinicopathological parameters (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>Out of the ten HER-2/neu IHC 3+ cases, nine (90%) were intestinal-type carcinomas (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>) and one case was mixed-type carcinoma (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>(a)). None of the diffuse type was HER-2/neu IHC 3+. Out of the 11 FISH positive cases, eight (72.7%) were intestinal-type and three (27.3%) were diffuse carcinomas. Hence, out of the 21 HER-2/neu positive cases, 17 (81%) were intestinal-type, three were diffuse (14.3%) and one (4.7%) was mixed-type carcinoma.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Clinicopathologic characteristics of the 73 studied gastric carcinomas</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percent</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sex</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Location</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cardia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fundus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Body</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pylorus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Histologic type</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intestinal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diffuse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.92</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mixed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.74</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Histologic grade</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moderately differentiated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poorly differentiated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pathologic tumor stage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.81</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.71</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymph node metastasis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Present</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Absent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pathologic nodal stage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N0 N1 N2 N3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 13 19 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.77 17.81 26.03 27.39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of nodes with metastasis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0 - 27 3.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymphovascular invasion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Present</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Absent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.8</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Immunohistochemical Study of Ki-67 Expression</title><p>Various Ki-67 scores were obtained ranging in distribution between 10% and 100%, with 15.1% of the cases (n = 11) featuring low Ki-67 scores and 84.9% of the cases (n = 62) featuring high Ki-67 scores. It was noticed</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Relation between HER-2/neu status and clinicopathological variables in the 71 studied cases (after excluding the two cases that were equivocal by FISH)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >HER-2/neu</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Test significance</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Positive</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Negative</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.19<sup>†</sup> P = 0.430</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sex</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.432<sup>†</sup> P = 0.236</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Histologic type</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intestinal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >1.155<sup>‡</sup><sup> </sup> P = 0.561</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diffuse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mixed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Histologic grade</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moderately differentiated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.05<sup>†</sup> P = 0.514</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poorly differentiated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pathologic tumor stage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T1, T2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >4.95<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.026<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T3, T4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymph node metastasis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Present</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.476<sup>†</sup> P = 0.348</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Absent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pathologic nodal stage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N0 N1 N2 N3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 2 8 6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.8 9.5 38.1 28.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 10 10 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.0 20.0 20.0 28.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.208<sup>†</sup> P = 0.361</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of nodes with metastasis</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0 - 14 4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0 - 27 5.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24<sup>&#167;</sup><sup> </sup> P = 0.625</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymphovascular invasion</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Present</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >5.12<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.020<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Absent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>*</sup>Significant at P ≤ 0.05; <sup>†</sup>Chi Square test; <sup>‡</sup>Fisher exact test; <sup>&#167;</sup>Mann Whitney U test.</p><p>that the two mixed-type carcinomas revealed high Ki-67 scores, with higher proliferation index in the diffuse compared to the intestinal component.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Relationship between Ki-67 Expression and the Different Clinicopathological Parameters</title><p>A significantly greater frequency of adenocarcinomas with high Ki-67 score was noted in male patients (61.3%; P = 0.039). A high Ki-67 score correlated significantly with higher tumor grade (P = 0.014), and greater number of regional nodes featuring metastatic deposits (P = 0.04). However, no significant relation was noted between</p><fig-group id="fig1"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> (a) HER-2/neu moderate to strong complete membranous immunostaining in &lt;10% of tumor cells in an intestinal-type gastric carcinoma; IHC score 2+ (&#215;400); (b) FISH image of the same tumor seen in (a) showing amplified HER-2/neu featuring increased number of red signals {HER-2/neu} than green signals {Cen 17}.</title></caption><fig id ="fig1_1"><label> (b)</label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x5.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig1_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x6.png"/></fig></fig-group><fig-group id="fig2"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> (a) HER-2/ neu strong complete membranous immunostaining in &lt;10% of tumor cells in a diffuse type gastric carcinoma; IHC score 2+ (&#215;400); (b) FISH image of the same tumor seen in (a) showing negative HER-2/neu amplification. Most of the cells show normal pattern of 2 green and 2 red signals.</title></caption><fig id ="fig2_1"><label> (b)</label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x7.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig2_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x8.png"/></fig></fig-group><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> HER-2/neu strong complete membranous immunostaining in most tumor cells in an intestinal-type gastric carcinoma; IHC score 3+ (&#215;100)</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x9.png"/></fig><fig-group id="fig4"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref></label><caption><title> Diffuse component of a mixed type gastric carcinoma showing HER-2/neu IHC score 3+ (a) and a high score Ki-67 nuclear staining (b), (&#215;400).</title></caption><fig id ="fig4_1"><label> (b)</label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x10.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig4_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x11.png"/></fig></fig-group><p>the Ki-67 status and any of the other clinicopathological parameters (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. Relationship between Ki-67 Expression and HER-2/Neu Status</title><p>The HER-2/neu IHC expression showed a significant statistical relation with the Ki-67 score (P = 0.005) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>). Moreover, a statistically significant correlation was found between HER-2/neu IHC expression and the proliferation index (r = 0.404; P = 0.001). However, the overall HER-2/neu positivity (HER- 2/neu IHC 3+, HER-2/neu IHC 2+/FISH positive) failed to show a significant relation with high Ki-67 score (P = 0.105).</p><p>Tumors that showed combined HER-2/neu positivity and high Ki-67 score (20 cases) were significantly associated with higher pathologic T-stage (P = 0.025) and LVI (P = 0.004) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>), when compared to the remaining 53 cases.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>According to a recent Egyptian study, the median overall survival, disease-free survival and progression-free survival for GC patients are 6, 17 and 3 months, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p>The frequency of HER2/neu positivity in GC as well as its relationship to the different clinicopathological parameters has not been studied before in Egyptian patients. Therefore, we underwent this study as an initial step to introduce the routine assessment of HER2/neu status as well as the treatment by trastuzumab as a standard of care among our GC patients.</p><p>We observed HER2/neu protein overexpression (HER2/neu IHC 3+) in 13.7% (n = 10) of GCs, and the overall HER2/neu positivity rate (IHC 3+ or IHC 2+/FISH positive) was 28.8% (n = 21). These rates are comparable to those of the ToGA trial, that reported HER2/neu-positive rates (IHC 3+ or IHC 2+/FISH positive) in GC or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer patients of 22.1% overall and around 10.4% of IHC 3+ in resected samples [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>The concordance of protein expression and gene amplification of HER2/neu in GC, in opposition to breast carcinoma is controversial. Protein overexpression without amplification was previously reported by Lemoine et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref18">18</xref>] , and Kameda et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref19">19</xref>] , which indicates that gene amplification may not be the primary mechanism by which the HER2/neu protein is overexpressed in GC. HER2/neu overexpression may be due to transcriptional activation by other genes or post-transcriptional events [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref20">20</xref>] . Recent studies, however, report a high concordance between overexpression in IHC and amplification by FISH or CISH [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref21">21</xref>] . We report a concordance rate of 47.8% between IHC and FISH for HER2/neu IHC 2+ cases. This is slightly lower than that reported by Yano et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref21">21</xref>] who found a concordance rate of 58.5% between IHC and FISH in the IHC 2+ tumors. In the ToGA trial, the overall concordance between HER2/neu positivity by IHC and FISH was 87% and differences were largely due to FISH-positive cases that were IHC 0/1+ [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref22">22</xref>] . However, we were not able to assess the overall concordance</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Relation between Ki-67 labeling index and clinicopathological variables in the 73 studied cases</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Ki-67 labeling index</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Test significance</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Low Ki-67 score</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >High Ki-67 score</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.77<sup>†</sup> P = 0.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sex</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >4.39<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.039*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Histological type</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intestinal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >1.744<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.418</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diffuse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mixed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Histological grade</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moderately differentiated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >5.90<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.014<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poorly differentiated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pathologic tumor stage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T1,2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.01<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.92</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T3,4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymph node metastasis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Present</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.014<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.609</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Absent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pathologic Nodal stage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N0 N1 N2 N3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 3 2 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.3 27.3 18.1 27.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 10 17 17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.03 16.13 27.42 27.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.968<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.809</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of nodes with metastasis</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0 - 5 1.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0 - 27 5.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.28<sup>&#167;</sup> P = 0.04*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymphovascular invasion</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Present</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.365<sup>‡</sup> P = 0.391</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Absent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.4</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>*</sup>Significant at P ≤ 0.05; <sup>†</sup>Chi Square test; <sup>‡</sup>Fisher exact test; <sup>&#167;</sup>Mann whitney U test.</p><p>of protein expression and gene amplification of HER2/neu in GC, and compare it to others as FISH testing was not done for all cases due to financial limitations.</p><p>The prognostic relevance of HER2/neu status in GC is still controversial. In our study, similar to others [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref24">24</xref>] , no relation was found between HER2/neu positivity and patients’ age, gender, and pathologic N stage. However, the HER2/neu positive status was significantly associated with LVI (P = 0.02) and the pathologic T- stage (P = 0.026).</p><p>Among the 73 studied cases, the intestinal type GC cases showed the highest rate of HER2/neu positivity (IHC 3+, or IHC 2+/FISH positive), yet without statistical significance. Conversely, several studies reported a statistically significant association between HER2/neu-positivity and intestinal-type GC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref25">25</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref27">27</xref>] . In the ToGA</p><fig-group id="fig5"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref></label><caption><title> An intestinal-type gastric carcinoma showing HER-2/neu strong complete membranous immunostaining in almost all tumor cells; IHC score 3+ (a) and a high Ki-67 score (b) (&#215;100).</title></caption><fig id ="fig5_1"><label> (b)</label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x12.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig5_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x13.png"/></fig></fig-group><fig id="fig6"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref></label><caption><title> Lymphovascular invasion in an intestinal-type carcinoma showing a score 3+ HER-2/neu immunostaining (a) as well as a high score Ki-67 nuclear staining (b) (&#215;400)</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1940171x14.png"/></fig><p>trial, countries with higher ratios of intestinal: diffuse/mixed cancer had increased HER2/neu-positivity rates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref17">17</xref>] , as HER2/neu positivity differed significantly by histological subtype (intestinal 34%, diffuse 6%, mixed 20%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref26">26</xref>] . In opposition to previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref28">28</xref>] , HER2/neu positivity in our series did not relate significantly with tumor grade. This contradiction may be due to different sample sizes, or differences in the scoring schemes with different cut-off points that were used prior to the establishment of a standard guideline for assessing HER2/neu expression. The adoption of the current consistent guidelines for HER2/neu assessment in future studies might clarify this issue.</p><p>Our second aim was to determine whether the expression of HER2/neu is associated with a more aggressive behavior by its correlation with Ki-67 expression. The Ki-67 expression rate in our study ranged between 10 and 100%, with 84.9% of the cases (n = 62) featuring high Ki-67 scores.</p><p>An increased frequency of high Ki-67 score was noted in patients &gt;50 years but without statistical significance. This observation is similar to results from previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref30">30</xref>] . In accordance with one study [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref9">9</xref>] , but in opposition to others [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref30">30</xref>] we noted a significantly greater frequency of GCs with high Ki-67 score in male patients (P = 0.039).</p><p>We observed a high Ki-67 score among 76.2% of our studied grade two GCs. In a significantly greater percentage, 96.8% of poorly differentiated carcinomas featured high Ki-67 score (P = 0.014). These results are concordant with the results from previous studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref30">30</xref>] . Moreover, high Ki-67 score showed a statistically significant correlation with the number of nodes (as a continuous variable) featuring metastatic deposits (P = 0.04). This relationship was previously reported in other organs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref32">32</xref>] . Similar to Amrani et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref9">9</xref>] , we observed higher rates of high Ki-67 score among higher pT-stages (91.5% for pT3 and pT4 tumors versus 57.1% for pT1 and pT2 tumors) but without statistical significance. These results suggest that the changes in the proliferative activity of tumor cells are related to the progression of GC. Conversely, Xiao et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref30">30</xref>] noted the absence of a significant difference in the proliferation rate between Tis/ pT1 tumors and pT2-4 tumors.</p><p>We noted that the HER2/neu IHC protein expression correlated significantly and strongly with the Ki-67 index (r = 404; p = 0.001), but the overall HER2/neu positive status did not relate significantly with the Ki-67 score. Similarly, Wu et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref29">29</xref>] demonstrated that the protein expression and gene amplification of HER2/neu were closely related to the expression of Ki-67 protein.</p><p>In this study, the twenty cases that showed both HER2/neu positivity and high Ki67 score revealed a significantly higher T-stage (P = 0.025), and higher rates of occurrence of LVI (P = 0.004), which signifies greater invasiveness and a more aggressive tumor phenotype. The simultaneous overexpression of HER2/neu and Ki-67 was previously suggested to be a prognostic marker for poor outcome in other tumors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref33">33</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.58818-ref35">35</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In conclusion, we report a rate of HER-2/neu positive GCs of 28.8%, a value close to that reported universally. Therefore, we recommend that, similar to breast cancer specimens, all GC specimens submitted to our laboratory be routinely evaluated for HER-2/neu status. This may give the patient a chance to benefit from trastuzumab therapy. Moreover, tumors showing concurrent HER-2/neu positivity and high Ki-67 score were significantly associated with LVI and higher T-stage, implying a more aggressive behavior. Further studies on a larger number of GCs are required to prove that the concurrent HER-2/neu positivity and high Ki-67 score are markers of worse prognosis.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Authors’ Contributions</title><p>Design of the study: MA. Collection of samples: SE, IT. Immunohistochemical analysis: SE, MA. FISH analysis: IT. Statistical analysis and elaboration of manuscript: SE. Critical review of the manuscript: MA. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflict of Interest</title><p>None.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Source of Support</title><p>None.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>SabaEl-Gendi,ImanTalaat,MonaAbdel-Hadi, (2015) HER-2/Neu Status in Gastric Carcinomas in a Series of Egyptian Patients and Its Relation to Ki-67 Expression. Open Journal of Pathology,05,101-113. doi: 10.4236/ojpathology.2015.54014</p></sec><sec id="s10"><title>List of Abbreviations</title><p>CEP: Centromere Enumeration Probe</p><p>FISH: Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization</p><p>GC: Gastric Carcinoma</p><p>GCSS: Gastric Cancer Scoring System</p><p>IHC: Immunohistochemistry</p><p>LSI: Locus Specific Identifier</p><p>LVI: Lymphovascular Invasion</p><p>ToGA: Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.58818-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Guggenheim, D.E. and Shah, M.A. (2013) Gastric Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 107, 230-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.23262</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alieldin, N. (2002-2010) NCI Hospital-Based Registry.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Ervik, M., Dikshit, R., Eser, S., Mathers, C., et al. (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 11. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/references.aspx</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">McGrath, SC., Ebert, M. and R&amp;ouml;cken, C. (2007) Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Epidemiology, Pathology and Pathogenesis. Cancer Therapy, 5, 877-894.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yan, S.Y., Hu, Y., Fan, J.G., Tao, G.Q., Lu, Y.M., Cai, X., Yu, B.H. and Du, Y.Q. (2011) Clinicopathologic Significance of HER-2/Neu Protein Expression and Gene Amplification in Gastric Carcinoma. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 17, 1501-1506. http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i11.1501</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ross, J.S., Slodkowska, E.A., Symmans, W.F., Pusztai, L., Ravdin, P.M. and Hortobagyi, G.N. (2009) The HER-2 Receptor and Breast Cancer: Ten Years of Targeted Anti-HER-2 Therapy and Personalized Medicine. Oncologist, 14, 320-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0230</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ross, J.S. and McKenna, B.J. (2001) The HER-2/Neu Oncogene in Tumors of the Gastrointestinal Tract. Cancer Invest, 19, 554-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/CNV-100103852</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bang, Y.J., Van Cutsem, E., Feyereislova, A., Chung, H.C., Shen, L., Sawaki, A., Lordick, F., Ohtsu, A., Omuro, Y., Satoh, T., Aprile, G., Kulikov, E., Hill, J., Lehle, M., Rüschoff, J. and Kang, Y.K., ToGA Trial Investigators (2010) Trastuzumab in Combination with Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone for Treatment of HER2-positive Advanced Gastric or Gastro-Oesophageal Junction Cancer (ToGA): A Phase 3, Open-Label, Randomised Controlled Trial. The Lancet, 376, 687-697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61121-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Amrani, H.J.,Marchoudi, N., Sadaoui,I., Mahfoud, W., Elgnaoui, N., Haddad, F., Fechtali, T. and Benomar, H. (2014) Ki-67 Expression in Gastric Cancer and Correlation with Clinico-Pathological Characteristics. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4, 1-4.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Czyzewska, J., Guzińska-Ustymowicz, K., Pryczynicz, A., Kemona, A. and Bandurski, R. (2009) Immunohistochemical Evaluation of Ki-67, PCNA and MCM2 Proteins Proliferation Index (PI) in Advanced Gastric Cancer. Folia Histochemica Et Cytobiologica, 47, 289-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10042-009-0042-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Endl, E. and Gerdes, J. (2000) The Ki-67 Protein: Fascinating Forms and an Unknown Function. Experimental Cell Research, 257, 231-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/excr.2000.4888</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fred, T., Carneiro, B.F., Hruban, R.H. and Theise, N.D. (2010) WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System. 4th Edition, IARC, Lyon, 417p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Washington, K. (2010) 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Stomach. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 17, 3077-3079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1362-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hofmann, M., Stoss, O., Shi, D., Buttner, R., van de Vijver, M., Kim, W., Ochiai, A., Ruschoff, J. and Henkel, T. (2008) Assessment of a HER2 Scoring System for Gastric Cancer: Results from a Validation Study. Histopathology, 52, 797-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.03028.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dowsett, M., Nielsen, T.O., A’Hern, R., Bartlett, J., Coombes, R.C., Cuzick, J., Ellis, M., Henry, N.L., Hugh, J.C., Lively, T., McShane, L., Paik, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Prudkin, L., Regan, M., Salter, J., Sotiriou, C., Smith, I.E., Viale, G., Zujewski, J.A. and Hayes, D.F. (2011) Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103, 1656-1664.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr393</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zeeneldin, A.A., Ramadan, H., El Gammal, M.M., Saber, M.M., Elgamal, D. and Sherisher, M.A. (2014) Gastric Carcinoma at Tanta Cancer Center: A Comparative Retrospective Clinico-Pathological Study of the Elderly versus the Non-Elderly. Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, 26,127-137.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnci.2014.04.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bang, Y., Chung, H., Xu, J., Lordick, F., Sawaki, A., Al-Sakaff, N., Lipatov, O., See, C., Rueschoff, J. and Van Cutsem, E. (2009) Pathological Features of Advanced Gastric Cancer (GC): Relationship to Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Positivity in the Global Screening Program of the ToGA Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27, 15S.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lemoine, N.R., Jain, S., Silvestre, F., Lopes, C., Hughes, C.M., McLelland, E., Gullick, W.J. and Filipe, M.I. (1991) Amplification and Overexpression of the EGF Receptor and c-erbB-2 Proto-Oncogenes in Human Stomach Cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 64, 79-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1991.243</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kameda, T., Yasui, W., Yoshida, K., Tsujino, T., Nakayama, H., Ito, M., Ito, H. and Tahara, E. (1990) Expression of ERBB2 in Human Gastric Carcinomas: Relationship between p185ERBB2 Expression and the Gene Amplification. Cancer Research, 50, 8002-8029.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hollywood, D.P. and Hurst, H.C. (1993) A Novel Transcription Factor, OB2-1, Is Required for Overexpression of the Proto-Oncogene c-erbB-2 in Mammary Tumour Lines. The EMBO Journal, 12, 2369-2375.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yano, T., Ochiai, A. and Doi, T. (2004) Expression of HER2 in Gastric Cancer: Comparison between Protein Expression and Gene Amplification Using a New Commercial Kit. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 14S.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lordick, F., Bang, Y.J., Kang, Y.K., et al. (2007) HER2-Positive Advanced Gastric Cancer: Similar HER2-Positivity Levels to Breast Cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 5, 271.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kataoka, Y., Okabe, H., Yoshizawa, A., Minamiguchi, S., Yoshimura, K., Haga, H. and Sakai, Y. (2012) HER2 Expression and Its Clinicopathological Features in Resectable Gastric Cancer. Gastric Cancer, 16, 84-93.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10120-012-0150-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bozzetti, C., Negri, F.V., Lagrasta, C.A., Crafa, P., Bassano, C., Tamagnini, I., Gardini, G., Nizzoli, R., Leonardi, F., Gasparro, D., Camisa, R., Capelli, S., Silini, E.M. and Ardizzoni, A. (2011) Comparison of HER2 Status in Primary and Paired Metastatic Sites of Gastric Carcinoma. British Journal of Cancer, 104, 1372-1376.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.121</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gravalos, C. and Jimeno, A. (2008) HER2 in Gastric Cancer: A New Prognostic Factor and a Novel Therapeutic Target. Annals of Oncology, 19, 1523-1529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.121</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, X.L., Yang, Y.S., Xu, D.P., Qu, J.H., Guo, M.Z., Gong, Y. and Huang, J. (2009) Comparative Study on Overexpression of HER2/Neu and HER3 in Gastric Cancer. World Journal of Surgery, 33, 2112-2118.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0142-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kim, K.C., Koh, Y.W., Chang, H.M., Kim, T.H., Yook, J.H., Kim, B.S., Jang, S.J. and Park, Y.S. (2011) Evaluation of HER2 Protein Expression in Gastric Carcinomas: Comparative Analysis of 1,414 Cases of Whole-Tissue Sections and 595 Cases of Tissue Microarrays. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 18, 2833-2840.http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1695-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wu, H.M., Liu, Y.H., Lin, F., Xu, F.P., Luo, D.L., Zhang, F., Zhuang, H.G., Luo, X.L., Wu, W.L. and Lin, X.T. (2011) Association of HER2 Protein Expression with Clinicopathologic Features and Prognosis in Chinese Patients with Gastric Carcinoma. Chinese Journal of Pathology, 40, 296-299.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wu, H.W., Qin, C.Y., Huang, J.L., Kong, X.Y., Wang, W.J. and Bai, W.K. (2014) Correlations of β-Catenin, Ki67 and Her-2/Neu with Gastric Cancer. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine, 7, 257-261.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1995-7645(14)60033-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Xiao, L.J., Zhao, S., Zhao, E.H., Zheng, X., Gou, W.F., Takano, Y. and Zheng, H.C. (2013) Clinicopathological and Prognostic Significance of Ki-67, Caspase-3 and p53 Expression in Gastric Carcinomas. Oncology Letters, 6, 1277- 1284.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Protzel, C., Knoedel, J., Zimmermann, U., Woenckhaus, C., Poetsch, M. and Giebel, J. (2007) Expression of Proliferation Marker Ki67 Correlates to Occurrence of Metastasis and Prognosis, Histological Subtypes and HPV DNA Detection in Penile Carcinomas. Histology and Histopathology, 22, 1197-1204.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yin, Y., Zeng, K., Wu, M., Ding, Y., Zhao, M. and Chen, Q. (2014) The Levels of Ki-67 Positive Are Positively Associated with Lymph Node Metastasis in Invasive Ductal Breast Cancer. Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics, 70, 1145- 1151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12013-014-0034-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rakovitch, E., Nofech-Mozes, S., Hanna, W., Narod, S., Thiruchelvam, D., Saskin, R., Spayne, J., Taylor, C. and Paszat, L. (2012) HER2/Neu and Ki-67 Expression Predict Non-Invasive Recurrence Following Breast-Conserving Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. British Journal of Cancer, 106, 1160-1165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.41</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nguyen, L.H., Black, M.J., Hier, M., Chauvin, P. and Rochon, L. (2003) HER2/Neu and Ki-67 as Prognostic Indicators in Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of Salivary Glands. The Journal of Otolar-yngology, 32, 328-331.http://dx.doi.org/10.2310/7070.2003.11438</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.58818-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lukashina, M.I., Glukhova, E.I., Zhukova, L.G., Ermilova, V.D., Bogatyrev, V.N. and Baryshnikov, A.I. (2003) Her-2/Neu, Ki-67 Expression and Ploidy in Breast Carcinoma. Archives of Pathology, 65, 25-29.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>