Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005 97(24):1796-1797; doi:10.1093/jnci/dji449
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henson, D. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Henson, D. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 Oxford University Press

EDITORIAL

Back to the Drawing Board on Immunohistochemistry and Predictive Factors

Donald Earl Henson

Correspondence to: Donald Earl Henson, MD, Office of Cancer Prevention and Control, The George Washington University Cancer Institute, Ross Hall, Rm. 502, 2300 I St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 (e-mail: patdeh@gwumc.edu).

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

The search for predictive biomarkers has been a recipient of funding largess. Potentially, biomarkers have the power to provide diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic information for personalized medicine. However, immunohistochemistry, a popular technique for evaluating biomarker expression, may contain procedural flaws that jeopardize its promise. In this issue of the Journal, McCabe et al. (1) used immunohistochemistry to show that the association between biomarker expression and outcome changes depending on the concentration of the biomarker antibody. They found that variations in antibody concentration could even reverse the relationship between biomarker expression and outcome. These observations have profound implications for the interpretation of immunohistochemical studies on biomarkers as predictors of outcome or response to therapy.

To demonstrate this effect, . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
S. K. Chang, I. Rizvi, N. Solban, and T. Hasan
In vivo Optical Molecular Imaging of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor for Monitoring Cancer Treatment
Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2008; 14(13): 4146 - 4153.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]