- Open Access
Clinical relevance of the reappraisal of negative hormone receptor expression in breast cancer
© Pinto et al.; licensee Springer. 2013
Received: 7 August 2013
Accepted: 7 August 2013
Published: 9 August 2013
Accurate assessment of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptors is critical in predicting the response to endocrine therapies in breast cancer.
Material and methods
From a series of 360 patients with breast invasive carcinoma assessed for hormone receptors by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the 90’s, we re-analysed, on the same tumour material, the cases considered negative (n = 164), i.e., ER-/PR- (n = 95), ER+/PR- (n = 63) and ER-/PR+ (n=6), and 16 of 196 ER+/PR+ tumours with unfavourable outcome. Concordance between the previous IHC (Streptavidin-Biotin-Peroxidase) method and the current one (Peroxidase-Indirect-Polymer) was determined by the McNemar’s test. Relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.
From 101 ER- and 158 PR- cases, 38 (37.6%) and 58 (36.7%) became positive, increasing ER and PR expression from 71.9% and 56.1% to 82.5% and 72.2%, respectively (P<0.001). All 16 ER+/PR+ cases maintained their co-positivity, while all ER-/PR+ tumours changed to ER positive. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed significant differences related to RFS and OS for PR, either in the whole series or in the subset (n = 151) submitted to hormonal treatment. The patients’ subgroup with ER+/PR- tumours exhibited the worst prognosis.
The current IHC method improves the clinical usefulness of ER/PR assessment by decreasing the rate of false negative results.
The assessment of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptors is predictive of the response to endocrine therapeutic strategies in breast cancer (Hammond et al. 2010; Allred et al. 2009; Goldhirsch et al. 2009). Along with this fundamental ability, the biomarkers analysis has shown, mainly for PR, prognostic significance as well (Pinto et al. 2003; Pinto et al. 2013). Therefore, an accurate determination of hormone receptor expression is critical in the management of breast cancer patients, both in the adjuvant and metastatic settings (Diaz & Sneige 2005; Elledge et al. 2000).
Currently, the most widely used technique for assessment of ER and PR status is immunohistochemistry (IHC) on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material (Allred et al. 2009). Its main advantages over other techniques (e.g., ligand binding assays or RT-PCR) stem from the easy, safe and relatively inexpensive application in routine practice, together with the possibility of morphological evaluation of small specimens and discrimination between benign and malignant cells (Hammond et al. 2010; Harvey et al. 1999).
A wide range of variability factors can affect, however, IHC methodology (Hammond et al. 2010; Bartlett et al. 2011), from pre-analytical variables, such as type of fixative and time of fixation, until scoring methods (and thresholds for positivity) for interpretation of tumour nuclear immunostaining slides. Other potential sources of analytical discordance include the choice of antibodies, antigen retrieval techniques, detection systems and quality control. Recently, increased attention has been paid on two controversial issues with clinical relevance: the high rate of false negative results (Hammond et al. 2010; Hede 2008; Allred 2008; Viale et al. 2007; Fisher et al. 2005), and the establishment of different cut-off points for distinguishing positive from negative biomarkers expression (Fisher et al. 2005; Regan et al. 2006; Cheang et al. 2006; Dowsett et al. 2008). It is obvious that both problems have direct impact on the important decision making of selecting patients for adjuvant hormonal therapies in breast cancer.
In order to compare the hormone receptor expression assessed by two IHC methods distant in time and investigate the prognostic implications of using various cut-off values to define ER and PR positivity, we decided to make the reappraisal of ER and PR status, using current IHC methodology, on the same previously analysed tumour samples of patients with breast cancer diagnosed in the 90’s in our Institution.
Material and methods
Clinico-pathological features and DNA ploidy status of the series investigated (n=360)
Grade of differentiation
Follow-up information was obtained by review of the patients clinical records. Outcome measures investigated were the relapse-free survival (RFS), that is, the time elapsed between diagnosis and the date of first local or distant recurrence, and the overall survival (OS), which is defined as the interval between diagnosis and death from the disease. Patients not experiencing the relevant end point were censored at last clinical observation.
Hormone receptor expression
Technical protocols used by the two IHC methods
Endogenous peroxidase blocking
Citrate buffer pH 6.0 in pressure cooker, 6´ in highest pressure
CC1 buffer pH 9.0, 52´
Primary monoclonal antibodies
NCL-ER-6F11 / NCL-PGR (Novocastra), diluted 1:10, 30´, room temperature
ER Ventana 790–4324 (SP1), pre-diluted, 60´, 37°C
PGR Ventana 760–4296 (1E2), pre-diluted, 28´, 37°C
Biotinylated rabbit anti-mouse (E413, Dako), diluted 1:250, 30´
Ultra view universal DAB (760–500, Ventana), 8´, 37°C
StreptABC Complex (K0377, Dako), diluted 1:100, 30´, room temperature
Negative: Primary antibody omission
Breast carcinoma tissue microarray (TMA) including “negative tumour, with normal glandular epithelium, positive tumour with moderate expression (30-70%), and positive tumour with high expression (≈ 100%)”
Positive: Breast carcinoma positive case
All cases considered negative for both ER (n=101) and PR (n=158), as well as 16 ER+/PR+ cases that showed unfavourable outcome, by this IHC technique, were re-evaluated, whenever possible on the same paraffin blocks, using the IHC technique (peroxidase-indirect-polymer technique performed on a Ventana Benchmark ULTRA instrument; Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., Tucson, USA) currently employed in our laboratory. The results were recorded semiquantitatively as the percentage of positively stained neoplastic cell nuclei using ≥ 1% cut-off value as criterion for positivity (Hammond et al. 2010). For prognostic purposes, a complementary data analysis was further performed, using a >10% cut-off point. The intensity of staining was not evaluated.
The comparative analysis of matched-paired cases for hormone receptor expression between the two IHC methods was assessed by the McNemar’s test with continuity correction. The associations of ER and PR status with clinico-pathological characteristics and outcome events (disease recurrence and death from the disease) were evaluated by Pearson’s Chi-Squared test. The probability of survival was estimated by means of the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival curves compared using the log rank test. P values < 5% were considered statistically significant.
By using the IHC method of the 90’s, 259 (71.9%) and 202 (56.1%) of 360 cases were considered positive for ER and PR, respectively. Specifically, the hormone receptor expression was as follows: ER+/PR+ (n = 196), ER-/PR- (n=95), ER+/PR- (n = 63), and ER-/PR+ (n = 6).
The comparison between the two IHC techniques showed significant differences in hormone receptor expression (P<0.001; McNemar’s test), even when a >10% cut-off was applied for the current IHC method (P<0.001). Using this IHC method, 38 of 101 (37.6%) and 58 of 158 (36.7%) previously considered ER- and PR- cases, respectively, changed to positive. Of these, 4 of the new 38 ER+ (10.5%) and 21 of 58 PR+ (36.2%) cases presented a low positivity staining, i.e., between the two cut-off values used, 1% and 10%.
Associations of hormone receptor expression with clinico-pathological features, DNA ploidy and outcome measures using two IHC methods and different cut-off values for positivity
Grade of differentiation
G1 vs. G2+G3
pT1 vs. pT2+pT3
pN0 vs. pN1
Diploid vs. Aneuploid
No vs. Yes
Death from the disease
No vs. Yes
During follow-up time (median, 124.5 months; range, 1–240), 124 patients (34.4%) experienced disease recurrence, while 92 patients (25.6%) died from the disease. Significant associations between negative PR expression and the outcome events were observed either with the IHC method of the 90’s (although weak) or with the current one, but only when a > 10% cut-off value was used (Table 3).
No statistically significant differences were observed for any ER K-M survival curves.
Lack of intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility of hormone receptor expression can affect the clinical usefulness of the biomarkers as predictors of the response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer (Rhodes et al. 2001; Regitnig et al. 2002). It is, therefore, a clinical priority any attempt made for improving the accuracy of the IHC technique. In this light, our study sought to investigate potential differences of hormone receptor expression between two IHC methods separated in time, by re-evaluating, on the same tumour material, ER and PR analyses performed in the 90’s.
All cases previously considered ER and PR negative, together with 16 of 196 ER+/PR+ cases, were re-analysed by using a current IHC method. The latter 16 cases were selected, throughout the decade, for having exhibited adverse clinical outcome, and served as control for testing ER and PR positive expression. It seemed to us reasonable to think that these cases would not change their hormone receptor expression, due to the higher cut-off value used in the IHC method of the 90’s. The hypothesis was further confirmed, as all 16 cases maintained their ER/PR co-positivity, and inferred for the remaining ER and PR positive tumours.
The matched-paired McNemar’s test revealed significant differences of hormone receptor expression between the two IHC methods. The data showed that a substantial proportion of previous ER (37.6%) and PR (36.7%) negative cases changed to positive. In consequence, ER and PR positivity increased from 71.9% and 56.1% to 82.5% and 72.2%, respectively. These changes do not appear to be caused only by the distinct cut-off values used for both methods, since when an identical cut-off point (>10%) for the current IHC method was applied, significant differences remained. Instead, the fact could be better explained by the IHC technical evolution over time, through automated procedures that allow a superior level of standardization as compared with previous manual staining methods. Different primary antibodies and improved detection systems could be the main causes involved.
In our study, as reported by others (Collins et al. 2005; Khoshnoud et al. 2011), the vast majority of breast carcinomas showed essentially a bimodal distribution of ER staining, varying between diffusely positive or completely negative ER expression. Indeed, we observed that only 4 of the new 38 ER+ cases had low positive nuclear staining, i.e., ranging between 1% and 10%. Interestingly, these cases were associated with lack of PR expression and poor prognosis (one recurrence and two deaths from the disease; data not shown). The rarity of the finding, which some authors attributed to inadequate fixation or focal tumour necrosis (Nadji et al. 2005), suggests that ER quantification may be, in practice, unnecessary or superfluous. Welsh et al. (2011) showed that changing the percentage of positive cells from 10% to 1% cut-off, as recommended by the new American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines (Hammond et al. 2010), did not affect significantly the overall number of ER-positive patients. However, our data point out that a special attention must be focused on these individual cases that, although unusual, tend to have an unfavourable clinical evolution and might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, it should be noted that all six previously labelled ER-/PR+ breast carcinomas changed to ER positive, which strongly suggests that this putative subset may represent a mere technical artifact (Rakha et al. 2010). Accordingly, Nadji et al. (Nadji et al. 2005), in their large immunohistochemical study of 5,993 breast cancers, found no ER-/PR+ tumours.
On the other hand, the assessment of PR immunostaining revealed prognostic significance, especially when using a >10% cut-off value. This suggests that, with regard to clinical outcome, cases with a low positive PR level (between 1% and 10%) do not differ significantly from those considered as PR negative. Together with the few ER low positive tumours, the finding raises the clinical question of whether patients with low positive hormone receptor expression would actually benefit from endocrine treatment. Our data seem to indicate that the pros (therapeutic benefit) and cons (potential side effects) of giving hormonal therapies for patients with minimal ER and PR positive expression should be cautiously evaluated. In a recent study, aiming to investigate the impact of low ER and PR expression (<10%) as well as the effect of endocrine therapy on survival outcomes of 1,257 previously classified triple negative breast cancer patients, Raghav et al. (Raghav et al. 2012) observed that for both ER/PR 1%-5% and 6%-10% level subgroups, no prognostic utility and only a tendency for survival advantages were found, respectively. These controversial findings reveal that the application of endocrine therapy in these patients needs further investigation (Brouckaert et al. 2013).
As expected, our data showed the significant association of negative hormone receptor expression with DNA aneuploidy and adverse clinico-pathological features, such as greater size and higher grade of differentiation tumours. In keeping to others (Jalava et al. 2005), no correlation was found between ER or PR and axillary lymph node status, suggesting that the biomarkers are not predictors of metastatic potential. However, only the lack of PR expression was associated with disease recurrence and mortality, using both the IHC method of the 90’s and the current one with a >10% cut-off value.
The Kaplan-Meier survival curves estimates did not show the prognostic significance of ER expression by any IHC method. On the contrary, it was proved the significant prognostic impact of PR analysis either for relapse-free or disease-specific survival of patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma. The same applies when a complementary subset analysis was performed in the subgroup of patients submitted to hormonal therapy. Interestingly, the prognostic significance of PR expression was strongly evident (lowest P value) when using a >10% cut-off point for the current IHC method, highlighting the importance of selecting this cut-off in the assessment of tumours positivity for better discriminating patients into two groups with distinct survival. Ogawa Y et al. (Ogawa et al. 2004), in their immunohistochemical study of 249 female breast cancers, reached the highest prognostic impact when they adopted an identical cut-off point (>10%) for hormone receptors in patients treated with endocrine therapy.
It was very striking, using the current IHC method with a >10% cut-off value, the worst prognosis found in the subgroup of patients who presented ER+/PR- tumours. As reported by others (Viale et al. 2007; Thakkar & Mehta 2011; Arpino et al. 2005), the latter seem to be a distinct subset of breast carcinomas characterized by great genomic instability, high proliferation rate, and aggressive behaviour, being associated by gene signature with the luminal B subtype (Perou et al. 2000). ER+/PR- tumours would represent, at a molecular level, a different subtype, as compared with ER+/PR+ and ER-/PR- breast carcinomas (Creighton et al. 2009). Although the biological role of PR is not yet fully elucidated, the PR downregulation might be an indicator of a nonfunctional nuclear ER pathway or the (gene silencing) result of the PR promoter methylation (Cui et al. 2005). In the clinical setting, the lack of PR in ER+ tumours could be predictive of poor response to endocrine therapies (Bardou et al. 2003; Rakha et al. 2007).
In conclusion, the present data indicate that the usefulness of automated methods, as well as more specific and sensitive detection systems, has significantly contributed to improve IHC techniques for determination of hormonal receptors in breast cancer. In particular, the comparison of ER and PR analyses performed in the 90’s and nowadays, emphasizes the clinical relevance of the reappraisal of negative hormone receptor expression in the former, owing to the decrease of false negative results. Furthermore, it was confirmed the prognostic significance of PR status, mainly when using a >10% cut-off value, either in the whole series or in the subgroup of patients who received hormonal therapy. Finally, it should be highlighted the fact that patients who presented ER+/PR- tumours exhibited the worst prognosis, which could have therapeutic implications in the management of breast cancer disease.
The experiments comply with the current laws of the country (Portugal) in which they were performed.
- Allred DC: Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada. Oncologist 2008, 13: 1134-1136. 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0184View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Allred DC, Carlson RW, Berry DA, Burstein HJ, Edge SB, Goldstein LJ, Gown A, Hammond ME, Iglehart JD, Moench S, Pierce LJ, Ravdin P, Schnitt SJ, Wolff AC: NCCN Task Force Report: Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009, 7(Suppl 6):S1-S21.Google Scholar
- Arpino G, Weiss H, Lee AV, Schiff R, De Placido S, Osborne CK, Elledge RM: Estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer: association with growth factor receptor expression and tamoxifen resistance. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97: 1254-1261. 10.1093/jnci/dji249View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bardou VJ, Arpino G, Elledge RM, Osborne CK, Clark GM: Progesterone receptor status significantly improves outcome prediction over estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer databases. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21: 1973-1979. 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.099View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bartlett JM, Rea D, Rimm DL: Quantification of hormone receptors to guide adjuvant therapy choice in early breast cancer: better methods required for improved utility. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29: 3715-3716. 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.3704View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brouckaert O, Paridaens R, Floris G, Rakha E, Osborne K, Neven P: A critical review why assessment of steroid hormone receptors in breast cancer should be quantitative. Ann Oncol 2013, 24: 47-53.Google Scholar
- Cheang MC, Treaba DO, Speers CH, Olivotto IA, Bajdik CD, Chia SK, Goldstein LC, Gelmon KA, Huntsman D, Gilks CB, Nielsen TO, Gown AM: Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24: 5637-5644. 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.4155View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Collins LC, Botero ML, Schnitt SJ: Bimodal frequency distribution of estrogen receptor immunohistochemical staining results in breast cancer: an analysis of 825 cases. Am J Clin Pathol 2005, 123: 16-20. 10.1309/HCF035N9WK40ETJ0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Creighton CJ, Kent Osborne C, van de Vijver MJ, Foekens JA, Klijn JG, Horlings HM, Nuyten D, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Chamness GC, Hilsenbeck SG, Lee AV, Schiff R: Molecular profiles of progesterone receptor loss in human breast tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 114: 287-299. 10.1007/s10549-008-0017-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cui X, Schiff R, Arpino G, Osborne CK, Lee AV: Biology of progesterone receptor loss in breast cancer and its implications for endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23: 7721-7735. 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 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. 10.1097/00125480-200501000-00003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dowsett M, Allred C, Knox J, Quinn E, Salter J, Wale C, Cuzick J, Houghton J, Williams N, Mallon E, Bishop H, Ellis I, Larsimont D, Sasano H, Carder P, Cussac AL, Knox F, Speirs V, Forbes J, Buzdar A: Relationship between quantitative estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) status with recurrence in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26: 1059-1065. 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9437View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Elledge RM, Green S, Pugh R, Allred DC, Clark GM, Hill J, Ravdin P, Martino S, Osborne CK: Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR), by ligand-binding assay compared with ER, PgR and pS2, by immuno-histochemistry in predicting response to tamoxifen in metastatic breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Int J Cancer 2000, 89: 111-117. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(20000320)89:2<111::AID-IJC2>3.0.CO;2-WView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Elston CW, Ellis IO: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991, 19: 403-410. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fisher ER, Anderson S, Dean S, Dabbs D, Fisher B, Siderits R, Pritchard J, Pereira T, Geyer C, Wolmark N: Solving the dilemma of the immunohistochemical and other methods used for scoring estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor in patients with invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2005, 103: 164-173. 10.1002/cncr.20761View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ: Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009, 20: 1319-1329. 10.1093/annonc/mdp322View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS, Hayes M, Hicks DG, Lester S, Love R, Mangu PB, McShane L, Miller K, Osborne CK, Paik S, Perlmutter J, Rhodes A, Sasano H, Schwartz JN, Sweep FC, Taube S, Torlakovic EE, Valenstein P, Viale G, Visscher D, Wheeler T, Williams RB, Wittliff JL, Wolff AC: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010, 134: e48-e72.Google Scholar
- Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC: 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.Google Scholar
- Hede K: Breast cancer testing scandal shines spotlight on black box of clinical laboratory testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100: 836-837. 10.1093/jnci/djn200View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hsu SM, Raine L, Fanger H: The use of antiavidin antibody and avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex in immunoperoxidase technics. Am J Clin Pathol 1981, 75: 816-821.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jalava P, Kuopio T, Huovinen R, Laine J, Collan Y: Immunohistochemical staining of estrogen and progesterone receptors: aspects for evaluating positivity and defining the cutpoints. Anticancer Res 2005, 25: 2535-2542.Google Scholar
- Khoshnoud MR, Löfdahl B, Fohlin H, Fornander T, Stål O, Skoog L, Bergh J, Nordenskjöld B: Immunohistochemistry compared to cytosol assays for determination of estrogen receptor and prediction of the long-term effect of adjuvant tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011, 126: 421-430. 10.1007/s10549-010-1202-7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, Vijver MJ van de (Eds): WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. Lyon: Fourth Edition. IARC Press; 2012.Google Scholar
- Nadji M, Gomez-Fernandez C, Ganjei-Azar P, Morales AR: Immunohistochemistry of estrogen and progesterone receptors reconsidered: experience with 5,993 breast cancers. Am J Clin Pathol 2005, 123: 21-27. 10.1309/4WV79N2GHJ3X1841View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ogawa Y, Moriya T, Kato Y, Oguma M, Ikeda K, Takashima T, Nakata B, Ishikawa T, Hirakawa K: Immunohistochemical assessment for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status in breast cancer: analysis for a cut-off point as the predictor for endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer 2004, 11: 267-275. 10.1007/BF02984548View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA, Fluge O, Pergamenschikov A, Williams C, Zhu SX, Lønning PE, Børresen-Dale AL, Brown PO, Botstein D: Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000, 406: 747-752. 10.1038/35021093View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pinto AE, André S, Mendonça E, Silva G, Soares J: Overall survival in advanced breast cancer: relevance of progesterone receptor expression and DNA ploidy in fine-needle aspirates of 392 patients. Int J Biol Markers 2003, 18: 7-12.Google Scholar
- Pinto AE, Pereira T, Santos M, Branco M, Dias A, Silva GL, Ferreira MC, André S: DNA ploidy is an independent predictor of survival in breast invasive ductal carcinoma: a long-term multivariate analysis of 393 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2013, 20: 1530-1537. 10.1245/s10434-012-2804-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Raghav KP, Hernandez-Aya LF, Lei X, Chavez-Macgregor M, Meric-Bernstam F, Buchholz TA, Sahin A, Do KA, Hortobagyi GN, Gonzalez-Angulo AM: Impact of low estrogen/progesterone receptor expression on survival outcomes in breast cancers previously classified as triple negative breast cancers. Cancer 2012, 118: 1498-1506. 10.1002/cncr.26431View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Paish EC, Powe DG, Gee J, Nicholson RI, Lee AH, Robertson JF, Ellis IO: Biologic and clinical characteristics of breast cancer with single hormone receptor positive phenotype. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25: 4772-4778. 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.2747View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO: Combinatorial biomarker expression in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010, 120: 293-308. 10.1007/s10549-010-0746-xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Regan MM, Viale G, Mastropasqua MG, Maiorano E, Golouh R, Carbone A, Brown B, Suurküla M, Langman G, Mazzucchelli L, Braye S, Grigolato P, Gelber RD, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Price KN, Coates AS, Goldhirsch A, Gusterson B, International Breast Cancer Study Group: Re-evaluating adjuvant breast cancer trials: assessing hormone receptor status by immunohistochemical versus extraction assays. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98: 1571-1581. 10.1093/jnci/djj415View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Regitnig P, Reiner A, Dinges HP, Höfler G, Müller-Holzner E, Lax SF, Obrist P, Rudas M, Quehenberger F: Quality assurance for detection of estrogen and progesterone receptors by immunohistochemistry in Austrian pathology laboratories. Virchows Arch 2002, 441: 328-334. 10.1007/s00428-002-0646-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rhodes A, Jasani B, Balaton AJ, Barnes DM, Anderson E, Bobrow LG, Miller KD: Study of interlaboratory reliability and reproducibility of estrogen and progesterone receptor assays in Europe. Documentation of poor reliability and identification of insufficient microwave antigen retrieval time as a major contributory element of unreliable assays. Am J Clin Pathol 2001, 115: 44-58. 10.1309/H905-HYC1-6UQQ-981PView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Thakkar JP, Mehta DG: A review of an unfavorable subset of breast cancer: estrogen receptor positive progesterone receptor negative. Oncologist 2011, 16: 276-285. 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0302View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Viale G, Regan MM, Maiorano E, Mastropasqua MG, Dell'Orto P, Rasmussen BB, Raffoul J, Neven P, Orosz Z, Braye S, Ohlschlegel C, Thürlimann B, Gelber RD, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Price KN, Goldhirsch A, Gusterson BA, Coates AS: Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1–98. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25: 3846-3852. 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9453View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Welsh AW, Moeder CB, Kumar S, Gershkovich P, Alarid ET, Harigopal M, Haffty BG, Rimm DL: 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. 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.9706View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.