“False positive” results of the estrogen receptor (ER) radioligand assay in breast cancer may be caused by immunocytochemically demonstrable ER in surrounding, non-malignant tissue

1987 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
G.W. Locher ◽  
M. Gorgievski ◽  
E. Waelti
PET Clinics ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rakesh Kumar ◽  
Neerja Rani ◽  
Chetan Patel ◽  
Sandip Basu ◽  
Abass Alavi

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (22) ◽  
pp. 2978-2984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison W. Welsh ◽  
Christopher B. Moeder ◽  
Sudha Kumar ◽  
Peter Gershkovich ◽  
Elaine T. Alarid ◽  
...  

Purpose Recent misclassification (false negative) incidents have raised awareness concerning limitations of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) in breast cancer. Here we define a new method for standardization of ER measurement and then examine both change in percentage and threshold of intensity (immunoreactivity) to assess sources for test discordance. Methods An assay was developed to quantify ER by using a control tissue microarray (TMA) and a series of cell lines in which ER immunoreactivity was analyzed by quantitative immunoblotting in parallel with the automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) method of quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF). The assay was used to assess the ER protein expression threshold in two independent retrospective cohorts from Yale and was compared with traditional methods. Results Two methods of analysis showed that change in percentage of positive cells from 10% to 1% did not significantly affect the overall number of ER-positive patients. The standardized assay for ER on two Yale TMA cohorts showed that 67.9% and 82.5% of the patients were above the 2-pg/μg immunoreactivity threshold. We found 9.1% and 19.7% of the patients to be QIF-positive/IHC-negative, and 4.0% and 0.4% to be QIF-negative/IHC-positive for a total of 13.1% and 20.1% discrepant cases when compared with pathologists' judgment of threshold. Assessment of survival for both cohorts showed that patients who were QIF-positive/pathologist-negative had outcomes similar to those of patients who had positive results for both assays. Conclusion Assessment of intensity threshold by using a quantitative, standardized assay on two independent cohorts suggests discordance in the 10% to 20% range with current IHC methods, in which patients with discrepant results have prognostic outcomes similar to ER-positive patients with concordant results.


2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica T DeFrank ◽  
Barbara K Rimer ◽  
J Michael Bowling ◽  
Jo Anne Earp ◽  
Erica S Breslau ◽  
...  

Objective Cancer screening guidelines often include discussion about the unintended negative consequences of routine screening. This prospective study examined effects of false-positive mammography results on women's adherence to subsequent breast cancer screening and psychological well-being. We also assessed whether barriers to screening exacerbated the effects of false-positive results. Methods We conducted secondary analyses of data from telephone interviews and medical claims records for 2406 insured women. The primary outcome was adherence to screening guidelines, defined as adherent (10–14 months), delayed (15–34 months), or no subsequent mammogram on record. Results About 8% of women reported that their most recent screening mammograms produced false-positive results. In the absence of self-reported advice from their physicians to be screened, women were more likely to have no subsequent mammograms on record if they received false-positive results than if they received normal results (18% vs. 7%, OR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.30, 7.70). Receipt of false-positive results was not associated with this outcome for women who said their physicians had advised regular screening in the past year (7% vs. 10%, OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.38, 1.45). False-positive results were associated with greater breast cancer worry ( P < .01), thinking more about the benefits of screening ( P < .001), and belief that abnormal test results do not mean women have cancer ( P < .01), regardless of physicians' screening recommendations. Conclusion False-positive mammography results, coupled with reports that women's physicians did not advise regular screening, could lead to non-adherence to future screening. Abnormal mammograms that do not result in cancer diagnoses are opportunities for physicians to stress the importance of regular screening.


Cancer ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 119 (22) ◽  
pp. 3952-3958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Roman ◽  
Rebecca A. Hubbard ◽  
Sofie Sebuodegard ◽  
Diana L. Miglioretti ◽  
Xavier Castells ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Balducci ◽  
G. Azzarello ◽  
L. Valori ◽  
L. Toffolatti ◽  
L. Bolgan ◽  
...  

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of cytokeratin-19 (CK-19) has been widely used to detect small numbers of circulating malignant epithelial cells in the bone marrow or the peripheral blood of patients with breast cancer. However, a high percentage of false positive results has been recorded and conflicting reports question the clinical relevance of this technical approach. We demonstrate that the use of a new nested primer pair for CK-19 RT-PCR avoids false positive results without affecting the sensitivity of the assay. Our experiments were carried out using MCF-7 cells alone or mixed with peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNC) of healthy donors. The results were also validated in a large series of healthy donors and in a preliminary study on a limited number of patients with breast cancer, thus suggesting that our assay is feasible for application in the clinical evaluation of occult malignant epithelial cells.


2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 76-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dolores Salas ◽  
Josefa Ibáñez ◽  
Rubén Román ◽  
Dolores Cuevas ◽  
Maria Sala ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document