scholarly journals Association between HER2 oncoprotein and hormonal receptors (estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor) on breast cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. x15
Author(s):  
F. Fulkiadli ◽  
D. Khambri ◽  
W. Harahap
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Progesterone Receptor ◽  
Hormonal Receptors

Development of an Evidence-Based Approach to External Quality Assurance for Breast Cancer Hormone Receptor Immunohistochemistry: Comparison of Reference Values

2011 ◽  
Vol 135 (7) ◽  
pp. 874-881
Author(s):  
Nikita Makretsov ◽  
C. Blake Gilks ◽  
Reza Alaghehbandan ◽  
John Garratt ◽  
Louise Quenneville ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Progesterone Receptor ◽  
Reference Values ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
External Quality Assurance ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
External Quality ◽  
Test Sensitivity

Abstract Context.—External quality assurance and proficiency testing programs for breast cancer predictive biomarkers are based largely on traditional ad hoc design; at present there is no universal consensus on definition of a standard reference value for samples used in external quality assurance programs. Objective.—To explore reference values for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor immunohistochemistry in order to develop an evidence-based analytic platform for external quality assurance. Design.—There were 31 participating laboratories, 4 of which were previously designated as “expert” laboratories. Each participant tested a tissue microarray slide with 44 breast carcinomas for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor and submitted it to the Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control Program for analysis. Nuclear staining in 1% or more of the tumor cells was a positive score. Five methods for determining reference values were compared. Results.—All reference values showed 100% agreement for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor scores, when indeterminate results were excluded. Individual laboratory performance (agreement rates, test sensitivity, test specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and κ value) was very similar for all reference values. Identification of suboptimal performance by all methods was identical for 30 of 31 laboratories. Estrogen receptor assessment of 1 laboratory was discordant: agreement was less than 90% for 3 of 5 reference values and greater than 90% with the use of 2 other reference values. Conclusions.—Various reference values provide equivalent laboratory rating. In addition to descriptive feedback, our approach allows calculation of technical test sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values, agreement rates, and κ values to guide corrective actions.

Male Versus Female Breast Cancers

2003 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Muir ◽  
R. Kanthan ◽  
S. C. Kanthan
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Progesterone Receptor ◽  
Male Breast Cancer ◽  
Male Breast ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Receptor Status ◽  
Female Breast ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Context.—The rate of male breast cancer is a small fraction of that observed in females, thus severely limiting our understanding of the pathogenesis of this condition. It remains unclear whether the biological behavior and tumor progression associated with male breast cancer parallel that of the female form. Objectives.—To evaluate the immunohistochemical profile of male breast carcinomas and to compare this profile with that of stage-matched female breast cancers. Design.—Seventy-five cases of primary male breast cancer were identified using the records of the Saskatchewan Cancer Foundation over a period of 26 years (1970–1996). Fifty-nine of these cases had formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks available for the purposes of this study. All cases were reviewed and a standardized modified Bloom-Richardson grading criterion was applied. Estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, c-Erb-B2 expression, p53 expression, and Bcl-2 expression were evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Results from 240 consecutive cases of stage-matched female breast cancers analyzed in the same laboratory were used as a standard set for comparison. Results.—Male breast cancers tended to be high grade (85% grade 3) in comparison with the female breast cancers (50% grade 3). In descriptive analysis across all stages of disease, male carcinomas were more frequently estrogen receptor positive (81% vs 69%) than their female counterparts. Despite their high grade, they were less likely to overexpress p53 (9% vs 28%) and Erb-B2 (5% vs 17%) than the female counterparts. There was no significant difference in either progesterone receptor (63% vs 56%) or Bcl-2 (79% vs 76%) overexpression. Stratified analysis by stage-matched controls showed no statistically significant differences among the men and women with stage I disease. However, in stage II–matched samples, statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups. The male cancers were more likely to overexpress estrogen receptor (81.6% vs 64.4%, P = .04), progesterone receptor (71.1% vs 47.5%, P = .01), and Bcl-2 (78.9% vs 69.4%, P = .20). They also showed statistically significant lower expression of p53 (7.9% vs 36.3%, P = .001) and Erb-B2 (5.3% vs 23.8% P = .01). Conclusion.—Male breast cancers display distinct immunophenotypic differences from those occurring in women, implying a different pathogenesis in the evolution and progression of this disease. Such differences may play key roles in therapeutic management, warranting different treatment strategies in comparison to female breast cancers.

Molecular Subtype Approximated by Quantitative Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor and Her2 Can Predict the Prognosis of Breast Cancer

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-song Chen ◽  
Chuan-dong Ma ◽  
Jia-yi Wu ◽  
Wen-tao Yang ◽  
Hong-fen Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Progesterone Receptor ◽  
Molecular Subtype
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document