scholarly journals American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 195-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Elizabeth H. Hammond ◽  
Daniel F. Hayes ◽  
Antonio C. Wolff ◽  
Pamela B. Mangu ◽  
Sarah Temin

ASCO and CAP collaborated to produce an evidence-based guideline on estrogen and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer to produce optimal testing performance.

1978 ◽  
Vol 24 (9) ◽  
pp. 1609-1611 ◽  
Author(s):  
L F Hofman ◽  
C Moline ◽  
G McGrath ◽  
E J Barron

Abstract Sucrose density-gradient analysis is one method of identifying specific estrogen and progesterone receptors in mammary tumor tissue. Use of the vertical rotor makes this practical for routine applications in the clinical laboratory by increasing the number of samples that can be run at one time and shortening the centrifuge time from 18 to less than 2 h. The separations and reproducibility compare favorably with those obtained with a swinging-bucket rotor.


2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. R169-R190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tram B Doan ◽  
J Dinny Graham ◽  
Christine L Clarke

Nuclear receptors (NRs) have been targets of intensive drug development for decades due to their roles as key regulators of multiple developmental, physiological and disease processes. In breast cancer, expression of the estrogen and progesterone receptor remains clinically important in predicting prognosis and determining therapeutic strategies. More recently, there is growing evidence supporting the involvement of multiple nuclear receptors other than the estrogen and progesterone receptors, in the regulation of various processes important to the initiation and progression of breast cancer. We review new insights into the mechanisms of action of NRs made possible by recent advances in genomic technologies and focus on the emerging functional roles of NRs in breast cancer biology, including their involvement in circadian regulation, metabolic reprogramming and breast cancer migration and metastasis.


2011 ◽  
Vol 135 (7) ◽  
pp. 874-881
Author(s):  
Nikita Makretsov ◽  
C. Blake Gilks ◽  
Reza Alaghehbandan ◽  
John Garratt ◽  
Louise Quenneville ◽  
...  

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.


1982 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-416
Author(s):  
Susan M. Thorpe ◽  
Carsten Rose ◽  
Bo V. Pedersen ◽  
Birgitte Bruun Rasmussen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document