A G Douglas-Jones1, N Collett, J M Morgan, B Jasani. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, CF14 4XN, UK. douglas-jones@cf.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: The use of the H score (involving the assessment of intensity and distribution of positivity) on sections stained for the oestrogen receptor (ER) by immunocytochemistry (ICC) allows different samples to be compared and detailed correlations to be made between hormone receptor expression and morphology. This study assessed the reliability of core biopsy in predicting ER expression in the same tumour excised later at treatment. The distribution of ER within excised tumours was investigated. METHODS: The distribution of ER positivity was investigated in 51 diagnostic core biopsies and across the diameter of 51 subsequently excised tumours in a field by field (magnification, x40; field diameter, 0.4 mm) assessment using the semiquantitive H scoring system. RESULTS: The ER H score in diagnostic core biopsy was significantly higher (p = 0.05, paired rank test; overall mean, 130; n = 51) than the mean in the corresponding excised tumour (mean, 110; n = 51). There was a significant downward trend in ER positivity from the periphery of tumours towards the centre (p = 0.001). The reduction of ER positivity was 6 H score units (2%)/mm. If core biopsies were orientated with the tumour edge at one end no change in ER positivity with field number along the length of the core could be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: ER estimation in core biopsies correlated well with expression in tumours but ER expression was higher in the core biopsies than in the excised tumours. ER expression was higher at the periphery of tumours than at the centre. The higher ER expression in cores may reflect the higher chance of sampling the peripheral part of a tumour using a needle core.
AIMS: The use of the H score (involving the assessment of intensity and distribution of positivity) on sections stained for the oestrogen receptor (ER) by immunocytochemistry (ICC) allows different samples to be compared and detailed correlations to be made between hormone receptor expression and morphology. This study assessed the reliability of core biopsy in predicting ER expression in the same tumour excised later at treatment. The distribution of ER within excised tumours was investigated. METHODS: The distribution of ER positivity was investigated in 51 diagnostic core biopsies and across the diameter of 51 subsequently excised tumours in a field by field (magnification, x40; field diameter, 0.4 mm) assessment using the semiquantitive H scoring system. RESULTS: The ER H score in diagnostic core biopsy was significantly higher (p = 0.05, paired rank test; overall mean, 130; n = 51) than the mean in the corresponding excised tumour (mean, 110; n = 51). There was a significant downward trend in ER positivity from the periphery of tumours towards the centre (p = 0.001). The reduction of ER positivity was 6 H score units (2%)/mm. If core biopsies were orientated with the tumour edge at one end no change in ER positivity with field number along the length of the core could be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: ER estimation in core biopsies correlated well with expression in tumours but ER expression was higher in the core biopsies than in the excised tumours. ER expression was higher at the periphery of tumours than at the centre. The higher ER expression in cores may reflect the higher chance of sampling the peripheral part of a tumour using a needle core.
Authors: R Nizzoli; C Bozzetti; N Naldi; A Guazzi; M Gabrielli; M Michiara; R Camisa; A Barilli; G Cocconi Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-02-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Zsolt Hodi; Jayeta Chakrabarti; Andrew H S Lee; John E Ronan; Christopher W Elston; Kwok Leung Cheung; John F R Robertson; Ian O Ellis Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2006-05-26 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Xiaoxian Li; Michael T Deavers; Ming Guo; Ping Liu; Yun Gong; Constance T Albarracin; Lavinia P Middleton; Lei Huo Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Lanell M Peterson; Jean H Lee; Hannah M Linden; Erin K Schubert; Lisa K Dunnwald; Jeanne M Link; Kenneth A Krohn; David A Mankoff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maria Vassilakopoulou; Fabio Parisi; Summar Siddiqui; Allison M England; Elizabeth R Zarella; Valsamo Anagnostou; Yuval Kluger; David G Hicks; David L Rimm; Veronique M Neumeister Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: Veronique M Neumeister; Valsamo Anagnostou; Summar Siddiqui; Allison Michal England; Elizabeth R Zarrella; Maria Vassilakopoulou; Fabio Parisi; Yuval Kluger; David G Hicks; David L Rimm Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gøril Knutsvik; Ingunn M Stefansson; Sura Aziz; Jarle Arnes; Johan Eide; Karin Collett; Lars A Akslen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240