Solving the dilemma of the immunohistochemical and other methods used for scoring estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor in patients with invasive breast carcinoma
Open Access
- 24 November 2004
- Vol. 103 (1) , 164-173
- https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20761
Abstract
BACKGROUND The authors attempted to resolve the dilemma posed by the lack of unanimity concerning the optimal immunohistochemical (IHC) method for determining and scoring estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR). METHODS Sections for IHC were prepared from paraffin embedded tumor samples from 402 patients with lymph node positive breast carcinoma who had biochemical receptor values (obtained with the dextran‐coated charcoal [DCC] method) and who were enrolled in a prospective, randomized trial (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol B‐09). IHC receptors were scored independently by two observers according to percent, intensity, and any‐or‐none algorithms. Results from these evaluations and from two computer‐assisted evaluations, DCC, and common pathologic characteristics were analyzed for optimum splits for positive reactions in univariate and multivariate analyses using a tree‐structured model. Concordance, sensitivity, and specificity were determined between the DCC method and all other methods. RESULTS Interobserver agreement and concordance between the DCC method and the other methods and among the methods were high. Univariate analyses revealed that a positive ER score obtained with all methods was related significantly to overall survival (OS) at 5 years and at 10 years. Results related to PR scores and disease‐free survival and recurrence‐free survival were less consistent. In multivariate analysis, it also was found that all methods for scoring ER predicted a better prognosis for OS in patients with an unfavorable lymph node status at 5 years and 10 years. Patients in a favorable lymph node status group were discriminated further by nuclear grade. CONCLUSIONS All IHC methods for scoring ER appeared valid as prognostic indicators of OS in patients with positive lymph nodes. The any‐or‐none IHC method, by virtue of its simplicity, represents an appropriate choice for practical use. Cancer 2005. © 2004 American Cancer Society.Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Recursive Partitioning Identifies Patients at High and Low Risk for Ipsilateral Tumor Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery and RadiationJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2002
- Hormone receptor status in primary breast cancer—time for a consensus?European Journal Of Cancer, 2002
- Progesterone Receptor Immunohistochemical Quantitation Compared With Cytosolic Assay: Correlation With Prognosis in Breast CancerApplied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology, 2001
- Study of Interlaboratory Reliability and Reproducibility of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Assays in EuropeAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2001
- Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systemsJournal of Clinical Pathology, 2000
- Standardization of Estrogen-Receptor Analysis by Immunohistochemistry: An Assessment of Interlaboratory Performance in IrelandApplied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology, 1998
- Immunohistochemically Determined Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Levels: A Comparison of Three Antibodies with the Ligand-Binding AssayThe Breast Journal, 1996
- Oestrogen Receptor Analysis of Paraffin Sections and Cytosol Samples of Primary Breast Cancer in Relation to Outcome After Adjuvant Tamoxifen TreatmentActa Oncologica, 1996
- The prognostic value of immunohistochemical estrogen receptor analysis in paraffin-embedded and frozen sections versus that of steroid-binding assaysEuropean Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology, 1990
- Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer with Chemotherapy and TamoxifenNew England Journal of Medicine, 1981