Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Patrick L. Fitzgibbons is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Patrick L. Fitzgibbons.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2006

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer

Antonio C. Wolff; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; Jared N. Schwartz; Karen L. Hagerty; D. Craig Allred; Richard J. Cote; M. Dowsett; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Amy S. Langer; Lisa M. McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D. Pegram; Edith A. Perez; Michael F. Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine M. Sturgeon; Sheila E. Taube; Raymond R. Tubbs; Gail H. Vance; Marc J. van de Vijver; Thomas M. Wheeler; Daniel F. Hayes

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 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 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.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2010

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer

M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; Daniel F. Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D. Craig Allred; Karen L. Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Glenn Duval Francis; Neil S. Goldstein; Malcolm M. Hayes; David G. Hicks; Susan Lester; Pamela B. Mangu; Lisa M. McShane; Keith W. Miller; C. Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N. Schwartz; Fred C.G.J. Sweep; Sheila E. Taube; Emina Torlakovic; Paul N. Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel W. Visscher; Thomas M. Wheeler; R. Bruce Williams; James L. Wittliff

PURPOSE To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. RESULTS Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2013

Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update.

Antonio C. Wolff; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; David G. Hicks; Mitch Dowsett; Lisa M. McShane; Kimberly H. Allison; Donald Craig Allred; John M. S. Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B. Jenkins; Pamela B. Mangu; Soonmyung Paik; Edith A. Perez; Michael F. Press; Patricia A. Spears; Gail H. Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel F. Hayes

PURPOSE To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. METHODS ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. RESULTS The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. RECOMMENDATIONS The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to > 10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2000

Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999

Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; David L. Page; Donald L. Weaver; Thor Ad; Allred Dc; Gary M. Clark; Ruby Sg; Frances P. O'Malley; Simpson Jf; James L. Connolly; Daniel F. Hayes; Stephen B. Edge; Lichter A; Stuart J. Schnitt

BACKGROUND Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Factors were ranked according to previously established College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic import and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that had been extensively studied biologically and clinically, but whose import remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected about existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Factors ranked in category I included TNM staging information, histologic grade, histologic type, mitotic figure counts, and hormone receptor status. Category II factors included c-erbB-2 (Her2-neu), proliferation markers, lymphatic and vascular channel invasion, and p53. Factors in category III included DNA ploidy analysis, microvessel density, epidermal growth factor receptor, transforming growth factor-alpha, bcl-2, pS2, and cathepsin D. This report constitutes a detailed outline of the findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines as defined.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2007

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer

Antonio C. Wolff; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; Jared N. Schwartz; Karen L. Hagerty; D. Craig Alfred; Richard J. Cote; M. Dowsett; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Amy S. Langer; Lisa M. McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D. Pegram; Edith A. Perez; Michael F. Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine M. Sturgeon; Sheila E. Taube; Raymond R. Tubbs; Gail H. Vance; Marc J. van de Vijver; Thomas M. Wheeler; Daniel F. Hayes

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 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 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.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2014

Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Antonio C. Wolff; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; David G. Hicks; Mitch Dowsett; Lisa M. McShane; Kimberly H. Allison; Donald Craig Allred; John M. S. Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B. Jenkins; Pamela B. Mangu; Soonmyung Paik; Edith A. Perez; Michael F. Press; Patricia A. Spears; Gail H. Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel F. Hayes

PURPOSE To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. METHODS ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. RESULTS The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. RECOMMENDATIONS The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to >10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2009

Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Primary Carcinoma of the Colon and Rectum

Mary Kay Washington; Jordan Berlin; Philip A. Branton; Lawrence J. Burgart; David K. Carter; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Kevin C. Halling; Wendy L. Frankel; John M. Jessup; Sanjay Kakar; Bruce D. Minsky; Raouf E. Nakhleh; Carolyn C. Compton

The College of American Pathologists offers these protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of surgical specimen examinations. The College regards the reporting elements in the “Surgical Pathology Cancer Case Summary (Checklist)” portion of the protocols as essential elements of the pathology report. However, the manner in which these elements are reported is at the discretion of each specific pathologist, taking into account clinician preferences, institutional policies, and individual practice. The College developed these protocols as an educational tool to assist pathologists in the useful reporting of relevant information. It did not issue the protocols for use in litigation, reimbursement, or other contexts. Nevertheless, the College recognizes that the protocols might be used by hospitals, attorneys, payers, and others. Indeed, effective January 1, 2004, the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons mandated the use of the checklist elements of the protocols as part of its Cancer Program Standards for Approved Cancer Programs. Therefore, it becomes even more important for pathologists to familiarize themselves with these documents. At the same time, the College cautions that use of the protocols other than for their intended educational purpose may involve additional considerations that are beyond the scope of this document.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2010

American Society of Clinical oncology/college of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer

M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; Daniel F. Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D. Craig Allred; Karen L. Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Glenn Duval Francis; Neil S. Goldstein; Malcolm M. Hayes; David G. Hicks; Susan Lester; Pamela B. Mangu; Lisa M. McShane; Keith W. Miller; C. Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N. Schwartz; Fred C.G.J. Sweep; Sheila E. Taube; Emina Torlakovic; Paul N. Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel W. Visscher; Thomas M. Wheeler; R. Bruce Williams; James L. Wittliff

PURPOSE To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. RESULTS Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2009

Genetic Heterogeneity in HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer Panel Summary and Guidelines

Gail H. Vance; Todd S. Barry; Kenneth J. Bloom; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; David G. Hicks; Robert B. Jenkins; Diane L. Persons; Raymond R. Tubbs; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond

CONTEXT Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2 gene amplification has been well documented and represents subclonal diversity within the tumor. The reported incidence of intratumor HER2 amplification genetic heterogeneity ranges in the literature from approximately 5% to 30%. The presence of HER2 genetic heterogeneity may increase subjectivity in HER2 interpretation by the pathologist. OBJECTIVES To define HER2 genetic heterogeneity and to provide practice guidelines for examining and reporting breast tumors with genetic heterogeneity for improvement of HER2 testing in breast cancer. DESIGN We convened an expert panel to discuss HER2 gene amplification testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Components addressed included a definition of HER2 amplification heterogeneity, practice guidelines for examination of the tissue, and reporting criteria for this analysis. RESULTS Genetic heterogeneity for amplification of HER2 gene status in invasive breast cancer is defined and guidelines established for assessing and reporting HER2 results in these cases. These guidelines are additive to and expand those published in 2007 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists. CONCLUSION Standardized methods for analysis will improve the accuracy and consistency of interpretation of HER2 gene amplification status in breast cancer.


CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians | 1997

Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: A report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists

Lawrence W. Bassett; David P. Winchester; Robert B. Caplan; D. David Dershaw; Kambiz Dowlatshahi; W. Phil Evans; Laurie L. Fajardo; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Donald E. Henson; Robert V. P. Hutter; Monica Morrow; Jean Paquelet; S. Eva Singletary; John Curry; Pam Wilcox‐Buchalla; M. Zinninger

A national task force consisting of members from the American College of Radiology, the American College of Surgeons, and the College of American Pathologists examined the issues surrounding stereotactic core-needle biopsy for occult breast lesions. Their report includes indications and contraindications, informed consent, specimen handling, and management of indeterminate, atypical, or discordant lesions.

Collaboration


Dive into the Patrick L. Fitzgibbons's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David G. Hicks

University of Rochester Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Lisa M. McShane

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Sanjay Kakar

University of California

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge