Automated measurement of estrogen receptor in breast cancer: A comparison of fluorescent and chromogenic methods of measurement

Laboratory Investigation

Volumn 96, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 1016-1025

  Zarrella, Elizabeth R ^a   Coulter, Madeline ^a   Welsh, Allison W ^a   Carvajal, Daniel E ^a   Schalper, Kurt A ^a   Harigopal, Malini ^a   Rimm, David L ^a   Neumeister, Veronique M ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; HEMATOXYLIN; CHROMOGENIC SUBSTRATE; FLUORESCENT DYE;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SURVIVAL RATE; TISSUE MICROARRAY; BREAST TUMOR; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FLUORESCENCE; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; LABORATORY AUTOMATION; METABOLISM; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS;

AUTOMATION, LABORATORY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHROMOGENIC COMPOUNDS; FLUORESCENCE; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; FLUORESCENT DYES; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; PROGNOSIS; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TISSUE ARRAY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84984621269     PISSN: 00236837     EISSN: 15300307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/labinvest.2016.73     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Clark GM, McGuire WL, Hubay CA, et al. The importance of estrogen and progesterone receptor in primary breast cancer. Prog Clin Biol Res 1983;132E:183-190.
2. Osborne CK, Fisher E, Redmond C, et al. Estrogen receptor, a marker for human breast cancer differentiation and patient prognosis. Adv Exp Med Biol 1981;138:377-385.
3. McGuire WL, De La Garza M, Chamness GC. Evaluation of estrogen receptor assays in human breast cancer tissue. Cancer Res 1977;37: 637-639.
4. Hede K. Breast cancer testing scandal shines spotlight on black box of clinical laboratory testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:836-837 44.
5. 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.
6. Allison KH. Estrogen receptor expression in breast cancer: we cannot ignore the shades of gray. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;130:853-854.
7. Allred DC. Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada. Oncologist 2008;13:1134-1136.
8. De Cecco L, Musella V, Veneroni S, et al. Impact of biospecimens handling on biomarker research in breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2009;9:409.
9. Hicks DG, Boyce BF. The challenge and importance of standardizing pre-Analytical variables in surgical pathology specimens for clinical care and translational research. Biotechnol Histochem 2012;87:14-17.
10. Cavaliere A, Bucciarelli E, Sidoni A, et al. Estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer: comparison between enzyme immunoassay and computer-Assisted image analysis of immunocytochemical assay. Cytometry 1996;26:204-208.
11. Miller RT, Hapke MR, Greene GL. Immunocytochemical assay for estrogen receptor with monoclonal antibody D753P gamma in routinely processed formaldehyde-fixed breast tissue. Comparison with frozen section assay and with monoclonal antibody H222. Cancer 1993;71:3541-3546.
12. Snead DR, Bell JA, Dixon AR, et al. Methodology of immunohistological detection of oestrogen receptor in human breast carcinoma in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue: a comparison with frozen section methodology. Histopathology 1993;23:233-238.
13. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, et al. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1474-1481.
14. Pertschuk LP, Feldman JG, Kim YD, et al. Estrogen receptor immunocytochemistry in paraffin embedded tissues with ER1D5 predicts breast cancer endocrine response more accurately than H222Sp gamma in frozen sections or cytosol-based ligand-binding assays. Cancer 1996;77:2514-2519.
15. 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.
16. Diaz LK, Sneige N. Estrogen receptor analysis for breast cancer: current issues and keys to increasing testing accuracy. Adv Anat Pathol 2005;12:10-19.
17. Gokhale S, Rosen D, Sneige N, et al. Assessment of two automated imaging systems in evaluating estrogen receptor status in breast carcinoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007;15:451-455.
18. Esteban JM, Battifora H, Warsi Z, et al. Quantification of estrogen receptors on paraffin-embedded tumors by image analysis. Mod Pathol 1991;4:53-57.
19. Makkink-Nombrado SV, Baak JP, Schuurmans L, et al. Quantitative immunohistochemistry using the CAS 200/486 image analysis system in invasive breast carcinoma: a reproducibility study. Anal Cell Pathol 1995;8:227-245.
20. Administration UFaD. 510(k) Summary of Substantial Equivalence, Aperio Technologies. (ScanScope XT System) www.accessdata.fda.gov/ cdrh-docs/pdf7/K073677.pdf. Accessed on 1 March 2014.
21. Nassar A, Cohen C, Agersborg SS, et al. A multisite performance study comparing the reading of immunohistochemical slides on a computer monitor with conventional manual microscopy for estrogen and progesterone receptor analysis. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;135:461-467.
22. Nassar A, Cohen C, Agersborg SS, et al. A new immunohistochemical ER/PR image analysis system: a multisite performance study. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2011;19:195-202.
23. Graham RC Jr, Karnovsky MJ. The early stages of absorption of injected horseradish peroxidase in the proximal tubules of mouse kidney: ultrastructural cytochemistry by a new technique. J Histochem Cytochem 1966;14:291-302.
24. Ramos-Vara JA, Miller MA. When tissue antigens and antibodies get along: revisiting the technical aspects of immunohistochemistrythe red, brown, and blue technique. Veterinary Pathol 2014;51:42-87.
25. Tubbs RR, Sheibani K, Deodhar SD, et al. Enzyme immunohistochemistry: review of technical aspects and diagnostic applications. Cleve Clin Q 1981;48:245-281.
26. Nakane PK, Pierce GB Jr. Enzyme-labeled antibodies: preparation and application for the localization of antigens. J Histochem Cytochem 1966;14:929-931.
27. Speel EJ. Robert Feulgen Prize Lecture 1999. Detection and amplification systems for sensitive, multiple-target DNA and RNA in situ hybridization: looking inside cells with a spectrum of colors. Histochem Cell Biol 1999;112:89-113.
28. Waggoner A. Fluorescent labels for proteomics and genomics. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2006;10:62-66.
29. Ioannou D, Tempest HG, Skinner BM, et al. Quantum dots as newgeneration fluorochromes for FISH: an appraisal. Chromosome Res 2009;17:519-530.
30. Xu H, Xu J, Wang X, et al. Quantum dot-based, quantitative, and multiplexed assay for tissue staining. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2013;5: 2901-2907.
31. Rojo MG, Bueno G, Slodkowska J. Review of imaging solutions for integrated quantitative immunohistochemistry in the Pathology daily practice. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2009;47:349-354.
32. Camp RL, Chung GG, Rimm DL. Automated subcellular localization and quantification of protein expression in tissue microarrays. Nat Med 2002;8:1323-1327.
33. Camp RL, Charette LA, Rimm DL. Validation of tissue microarray technology in breast carcinoma. Lab Invest 2000;80:1943-1949.
34. Giltnane JM, Rimm DL. Technology insight: Identification of biomarkers with tissue microarray technology. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2004;1: 104-111.
35. Welsh AW, Harigopal M, Wimberly H, et al. Quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression shows SP1 antibody is more sensitive than 1D5. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2013;21:139-147.
36. Laurinavicius A, Laurinaviciene A, Ostapenko V, et al. Immunohistochemistry profiles of breast ductal carcinoma: factor analysis of digital image analysis data. Diagn Pathol 2012;7:27.
37. Johnsson A, Olsson C, Anderson H, et al. Evaluation of a method for quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of cisplatin-DNA adducts in tissues from nude mice. Cytometry 1994;17:142-150.
38. Welsh AW, Moeder CB, Kumar S, et al. Standardization of estrogen receptor measurement in breast cancer suggests false-negative results are a function of threshold intensity rather than percentage of positive cells. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2978-2984.
39. Mazouni C, Bonnier P, Goubar A, et al. Is quantitative oestrogen receptor expression useful in the evaluation of the clinical prognosis? Analysis of a homogeneous series of 797 patients with prospective determination of the ER status using simultaneous EIA and IHC. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2716-2725.
40. Badve SS, Baehner FL, Gray RP, et al. Estrogen- and progesteronereceptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J Clin Oncol 2008;26: 2473-2481.