Standardization of estrogen receptor measurement in breast cancer suggests false-negative results are a function of threshold intensity rather than percentage of positive cells

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 29, Issue 22, 2011, Pages 2978-2984

  Welsh, Allison W ^a,b,c   Moeder, Christopher B ^a,b,c   Kumar, Sudha ^a,b,c   Gershkovich, Peter ^a,b,c   Alarid, Elaine T ^a,b,c   Harigopal, Malini ^a,b,c   Haffty, Bruce G ^a,b,c   Rimm, David L ^a,b,c  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c RUTGERS CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; TUMOR MARKER;

ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CELL; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURVIVAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IMMUNOBLOTTING; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE; IMMUNOREACTIVITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ASSAY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDIZATION; TISSUE MICROARRAY; BREAST TUMOR; FEMALE; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METABOLISM; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; TUMOR CELL LINE;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CELL LINE, TUMOR; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION, NEOPLASTIC; HUMANS; IMMUNOBLOTTING; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 80051623352     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.9706     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Gown AM: Current issues in ER and HER2 testing by IHC in breast cancer. Mod Pathol 21:S8-S15, 2008 (suppl 2)
2. Hede K: Breast cancer testing scandal shines spotlight on black box of clinical laboratory testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:836-837, 2008
3. Allred DC: Commentary: Hormone receptor testing in breast cancer - A distress signal from Canada. Oncologist 13:1134-1136, 2008
4. Matthews A: Bad cancer tests draw scrutiny. Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2008:B1
5. Allison KH: Estrogen receptor expression in breast cancer: We cannot ignore the shades of gray. Am J Clin Pathol 130:853-854, 2008
6. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287-5312, 2007 (Pubitemid 350232263)
7. 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 28:2784-2795, 2010
8. McCabe A, Dolled-Filhart M, Camp RL, et al: Automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) of in situ protein expression, antibody concentration, and prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1808-1815, 2005 (Pubitemid 43033901)
9. Berger AJ, Davis DW, Tellez C, et al: Automated quantitative analysis of activator protein-2alpha subcellular expression in melanoma tissue microarrays correlates with survival prediction. Cancer Res 65:11185-11192, 2005 (Pubitemid 41713390)
10. Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, King BL, et al: Quantitative analysis of breast cancer tissue microarrays shows that both high and normal levels of HER2 expression are associated with poor outcome. Cancer Res 63:1445-1448, 2003 (Pubitemid 36373626)
11. Dolled-Filhart M, McCabe A, Giltnane J, et al: Quantitative in situ analysis of beta-catenin expression in breast cancer shows decreased expression is associated with poor outcome. Cancer Res 66: 5487-5494, 2006 (Pubitemid 43844977)
12. Giltnane JM, Rydén L, Cregger M, et al: Quantitative measurement of epidermal growth factor receptor is a negative predictive factor for tamoxifen response in hormone receptor positive premenopausal breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:3007-3014, 2007 (Pubitemid 47218046)
13. Gustavson MD, Bourke-Martin B, Reilly D, et al: Standardization of HER2 immunohistochemistry in breast cancer by automated quantitative analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1413-1419, 2009
14. Moeder CB, Giltnane JM, Harigopal M, et al: Quantitative justification of the change from 10% to 30% for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 scoring in the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines: Tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer and its implications for tissue microarray based assessment of outcome. J Clin Oncol 25:5418-5425, 2007 (Pubitemid 350232218)
15. Bartlett JM, Brookes C, Robson T, et al: The TEAM trial pathology study identifies potential prognostic and predictive biomarker models for postmenopausal patients treated with endocrine therapy. 32nd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX, December 9-13, 2009 (abstr 75)
16. Harigopal M, Barlow WE, Tedeschi G, et al: Multiplexed assessment of the Southwest Oncology Group-directed Intergroup Breast Cancer Trial S9313 by AQUA shows that both high and low levels of HER2 are associated with poor outcome. Am J Pathol 176:1639-1647, 2010
17. Fowler AM, Solodin N, Preisler-Mashek MT, et al: Increases in estrogen receptor-alpha concentration in breast cancer cells promote serine 118/104/106-independent AF-1 transactivation and growth in the absence of estrogen. Faseb J 18:81-93, 2004 (Pubitemid 38076468)
18. Ma H, Wang Y, Sullivan-Halley J, et al: Breast cancer receptor status: Do results from a centralized pathology laboratory agree with SEER registry reports? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18:2214-2220, 2009
19. Collins LC, Marotti JD, Baer HJ, et al: Comparison of estrogen receptor results from pathology reports with results from central laboratory testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:218-221, 2008 (Pubitemid 351480544)
20. Rothberg BE, Moeder CB, Kluger H, et al: Nuclear to non-nuclear Pmel17/gp100 expression (HMB45 staining) as a discriminator between benign and malignant melanocytic lesions. Mod Pathol 21: 1121-1129, 2008