A multisite performance study comparing the reading of immunohistochemical slides on a computer monitor with conventional manual microscopy for estrogen and progesterone receptor analysis

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 135, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 461-467

  Nassar, Aziza ^a   Cohen, Cynthia ^b   Agersborg, Sally S ^c   Zhou, Weidong ^c   Lynch, Kathleen A ^c   Barker, Edward A ^d   Vanderbilt, Burton L ^e   Thompson, Jim ^f   Heyman, Eugene R ^g   Olson, Allen ^g   Lange, Holger ^g   Siddiqui, Momin T ^b  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c QUEST DIAGNOSTICS NICHOLS INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d Medical Laboratory Associates   (United States)

^e Bartlett Regional Hospital   (United States)

^f Pathology Department   (United States)

^g Aperio Technologies   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Digital images; Estrogen receptor; Progesterone receptor

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR; TUMOR MARKER;

ARTICLE; BREAST; COMPUTER; DIGITAL IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MICROSCOPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; BREAST TUMOR; CELL NUCLEUS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; IMAGE PROCESSING; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; TELEPATHOLOGY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CELL NUCLEUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MICROSCOPY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; RECEPTORS, PROGESTERONE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TELEPATHOLOGY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 79954438691     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: 19437722     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP4VFKA5FCMZNA     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Cano G, Milanezi F, Leitao D, et al. Estimation of hormone receptor status in fine-needle aspirates and paraffinembedded sections from breast cancer using the novel rabbit monoclonal antibodies SP1 and SP2. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;29:207-211. (Pubitemid 37193648)
2. Parker RL, Huntsman DG, Lesack DW, et al. Assessment of interlaboratory variation in the immunohistochemical determination of estrogen receptor status using a breast cancer tissue microarray. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:723-728. (Pubitemid 34457006)
3. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2784-2795.
4. Fitzgibbons PL, Murphy DA, Hammond ME, et al. Recommendations for validating estrogen and progesterone receptor immunohistochemistry assays. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:930-935.
5. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:118-145. (Pubitemid 350003059)
6. Yaziji H, Taylor CR, Goldstein NS, et al. Consensus recommendations on estrogen receptor testing in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2008;16:513-520.
7. Elledge RM, Green S, Pugh R, et al. Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR), by ligand-binding assay compared with ER, PgR and pS2, by immunohistochemistry in predicting response to tamoxifen in metastatic breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2000;89:111-117. (Pubitemid 30185917)
8. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, et al. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligandbinding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1474-1481. (Pubitemid 29220854)
9. Phillips T, Murray G, Wakamiya K, et al. Development of standard estrogen and progesterone receptor immunohistochemical assays for selection of patients for antihormonal therapy. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007;15:325-331. (Pubitemid 47329926)