Literature DB >> 16115314

Is preoperative core biopsy accurate in determining the hormone receptor status in women with invasive breast cancer?

W Al Sarakbi1, M Salhab, V Thomas, K Mokbel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the concordance rate between core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical excision of invasive breast cancer regarding the oestrogen receptor (ER) and Progesterone receptor (PgR) status as determined by Immunohistochemistry (IHC).
METHODS: Hormone receptor status was established using IHC (using quickscore system 0-8) on preoperative CNB and subsequent surgical excision in 93 patients with invasive breast cancer. Results were compared taking into account tumour's size, grade, and patient's age.
RESULTS: The ER concordance rate between CNB and surgical excisions was 95%. The PgR concordance rate was 89%. This shows that CNB has a sensitivity of 97% for ER and 95% for PgR. There is a positive correlation of ER and PgR between CNB and surgical excision (p < 0.000001). There was no significant difference in the number of core biopsies between concordant and discordant cases.
CONCLUSION: Preoperative core biopsy is highly sensitive for the IHC detection of ER and PgR in invasive breast cancer. The concordance rate is higher for ER than PgR, which could be due to the fact that ER is more homogeneously distributed.

Entities:  

Year:  2005        PMID: 16115314      PMCID: PMC1198246          DOI: 10.1186/1477-7800-2-15

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Semin Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1477-7800


Introduction

The core needle biopsy (CNB) is technique increasingly used for the preoperative assessment of breast lesions [1]. Image guidance increases accuracy and reduces the number of false negative cases [2]. The presence of malignancy and tumour's type and grade are routinely reported. There is an increasing need to provide prognostic data on CNB in order to improve treatment outcome [3,4]. Hormone receptor status, and especially ER, provides valuable prognostic information and predicts the response to adjuvant and neo-adjuvant systemic treatment [5]. Traditionally, the hormone receptor status was determined by enzyme immunoassay of ER and PgR proteins. However, this has been replaced gradually by immunohistochemistry (IHC), which has shown an equal reliability [6]. Previous studies that examined the reliability of preoperative CNB using enzyme immunoassay showed conflicting results [7-9]. This retrospective study examines the correlation between CNB and surgical excision in regards to the ER ad PgR status of invasive breast cancer using IHC.

Patients and Methods

In this retrospective study we looked at consecutive 95 cases of invasive breast carcinoma in 93 patients. All patients underwent CNB at their clinic appointment and proceeded for breast surgery subsequently 2–3 weeks later. Preoperative CNBs and surgical excision specimens were analysed for ER and PgR status using IHC (DAKO mab) after antigen retrieval at high temperature. All specimens were analysed using semi quantitative IHC "quick score" system (0 – 8) by the same breast pathologist. With this method, the intensity of the immunohistochemical reaction as viewed under the light microscope was recorded 0–4 (0 indicated no staining of any nuclei even at high magnification). The proportion of cells staining positively at any intensity was scored as 0 (no cell staining), 1 (1–25% cells stained), 2 (26–50% cells stained), 3 (51–75% cells stained) or 4 (when >75% cells stained). The proportion and intensity scores were added together to obtain a total score ranging from 0 to 8. We also examined other parameters including: tumour size, grade, and patient's age. ER/PgR status was considered positive if quick score was 2 – 8. Results were re-assessed when quick score was raised to 4 – 8 to label ER/PgR status as positive. The number of biopsies taken on each occasion was also recorded.

Results

The mean and median age of this study group was 59.2 and 59 respectively (range 32 – 92 years). The mean tumour size was 20 mm (3.2 – 110 mm), and the median grade was 2 (1 – 3). The median number of CNBs taken at preoperative assessment was 2.6 (1 – 9). The mean IHC score for ER was 6.7 (range 0 – 8). All patients had either mastectomy or lumpectomy as their definitive surgical treatment. Firstly, ER/PgR status was considered positive if quick score was 2 – 8. The concordance for tumour grade was 65%. The concordance rate for ER was 95% between CNB and surgical excision. There were 2 false negative and 3 false positive cases. PgR concordance rate was 89% with 4 false negative and 6 false positive cases. According to the above results the sensitivity of CNB for ER and PgR was 97% and 95% respectively. Furthermore, to re-examine our findings, we analysed the results considering ER/PgR to be positive if quick score was 4 – 8. We found a concordance rate for ER to be 93% (3 false negative and 5 false positive cases). The concordance rate for PgR was 92% (3 false negative and 6 false positive cases) (figure 1). This gives CNB sensitivity of 98% for positive ER status and 96% for positive PgR status (table 1).
Figure 1

Graphic Results, 1: ER in CNB, 2: ER in surgical excision.

Table 1

Sensitivity and specificity of CNB for ER and PgR Status.

ParameterER status N = 95PgR status N = 93
Positive CNB8985
Negative CNB68
Positive SE8682
Negative SE911
Sensitivity of CNB97.6%96.3%
Specificity of CNB96.6%96.4%
Concordance rate92.6%92.4%

CNB: Core Needle Biopsy

SE: Surgical Excision

Positive: Quickscore 4 – 8

Negative: Quickscore 0 – 3

Graphic Results, 1: ER in CNB, 2: ER in surgical excision. Sensitivity and specificity of CNB for ER and PgR Status. CNB: Core Needle Biopsy SE: Surgical Excision Positive: Quickscore 4 – 8 Negative: Quickscore 0 – 3 ER in CNB positively correlated with ER in surgical excision (r: 0.61, p < 0.000001). PgR in CNB also positively correlated with PgR in surgical excision (r: 0.66, p < 0.000001) There was no significant difference in the number of CNBs between concordant and discordant cases.

Discussion

Core needle biopsies offer a reliable and accurate assessment of hormone receptor status. Previous studies on a smaller case sample have suggested similar findings regarding ER [10-12]. However, results on PgR were less consistent. The concordance rate in our study for ER was higher than for PgR. Homogenous distribution of ER through out the tumour is a possible explanation. Heterogeneity of the ER in tumour cell populations may have important implications for analytic cell selection and for prognosis in ER-positive carcinomas. Previous studies have shown homogenous geographic distribution of ER in the tumour cell population [13,14]. These results indicate that the hormone receptor status as determined by CNB can be reliably used to guide neo-adjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with invasive breast cancer. In summary, preoperative CNB is highly sensitive for the IHC detection of ER and PgR in invasive breast cancer.
  14 in total

1.  Multiparametric study (SAMBA 200) of estrogen receptor immunocytochemical assay in 400 human breast carcinomas: analysis of estrogen receptor distribution heterogeneity in tissues and correlations with dextran coated charcoal assays and morphological data.

Authors:  C Charpin; P M Martin; B De Victor; M N Lavaut; M C Habib; L Andrac; M Toga
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1988-03-15       Impact factor: 12.701

2.  False-negative core needle biopsies of the breast: an analysis of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings in 27 concecutive cases of missed breast cancer.

Authors:  Varsha I Shah; Usha Raju; Dhananjay Chitale; Vikram Deshpande; Nancy Gregory; Vernon Strand
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Influence of mastectomy technique on sex steroid receptor analysis.

Authors:  T Day; R R Yeoman; G Nelson; J J Ferrara
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Assessment of pathologic prognostic factors in breast core needle biopsies.

Authors:  S Sharifi; M K Peterson; J K Baum; S Raza; S J Schnitt
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 7.842

5.  Comparison of enzyme immunoassay and immunohistochemical measurements of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  M Ferrero-Poüs; M Trassard; V Le Doussal; K Hacène; M Tubiana-Hulin; F Spyratos
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2001-09

6.  A comparison of prognostic tumor markers obtained on image-guided breast biopsies and final surgical specimens.

Authors:  Carol S Connor; Ossama W Tawfik; Alina J Joyce; Marilyn K Davis; Matthew S Mayo; William R Jewell
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Influence of surgical technique on estrogen and progesterone receptor determinations in breast cancer.

Authors:  K G Bridges; A A Keshgegian; H A Kumar; H S Neal
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1983-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Estrogen and progesterone receptor levels are lower in specimens taken from previously biopsied breast tumor tissue.

Authors:  Y Sharoni; B Feldman; I Inbar; I Haruzi; J Levy
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 3.454

9.  Risk factors for breast cancer according to estrogen and progesterone receptor status.

Authors:  Graham A Colditz; Bernard A Rosner; Wendy Y Chen; Michelle D Holmes; Susan E Hankinson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-02-04       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Correlation of histologic prognostic factors in core biopsies and therapeutic excisions of invasive breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Gavin C Harris; Helen E Denley; Sarah E Pinder; Andrew H S Lee; Ian O Ellis; Christopher W Elston; Andrew Evans
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 6.394

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens.

Authors:  E A Rakha; I O Ellis
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2007-07-14       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Digital image analysis outperforms manual biomarker assessment in breast cancer.

Authors:  Gustav Stålhammar; Nelson Fuentes Martinez; Michael Lippert; Nicholas P Tobin; Ida Mølholm; Lorand Kis; Gustaf Rosin; Mattias Rantalainen; Lars Pedersen; Jonas Bergh; Michael Grunkin; Johan Hartman
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  Reliability of receptor assessment on core needle biopsy in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  S C Seferina; M Nap; F van den Berkmortel; J Wals; A C Voogd; V C G Tjan-Heijnen
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2012-12-27

4.  Heterogeneity of focal breast lesions and surrounding tissue assessed by mammographic texture analysis: preliminary evidence of an association with tumor invasion and estrogen receptor status.

Authors:  Balaji Ganeshan; Olga Strukowska; Karoline Skogen; Rupert Young; Chris Chatwin; Ken Miles
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  The Core Needle and Surgical Biopsy Concordance to Detect Estrogen, Progesterone, and Her-2 Receptors in Breast Cancer: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Fereshteh Ensani; Ramesh Omranipour; Isa Jahanzad; Azadeh Jafari; Shima Nafarzadeh; Pouyan Aminishakib
Journal:  Iran J Pathol       Date:  2017-07-01

6.  Comparison of hormonal receptor and HER2 status between ultrasound-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy and surgery in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Yun Joo Park; Ji Hyun Youk; Eun Ju Son; Hye Mi Gweon; Jeong-Ah Kim
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2014-04-14

7.  A prospective comparison of ER, PR, Ki67 and gene expression in paired sequential core biopsies of primary, untreated breast cancer.

Authors:  Sirwan M Hadad; Lee B Jordan; Pankaj G Roy; Colin A Purdie; Takayuki Iwamoto; Lajos Pusztai; Stacy L Moulder-Thompson; Alastair M Thompson
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Comparison of Core Needle Biopsy and Surgical Specimens in Determining Intrinsic Biological Subtypes of Breast Cancer with Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Kiho You; Sungmin Park; Jai Min Ryu; Isaac Kim; Se Kyung Lee; Jonghan Yu; Seok Won Kim; Seok Jin Nam; Jeong Eon Lee
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 3.588

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.