PURPOSE: Estrogen receptor (ER) expression predicts improved breast cancer-specific survival and reduced risk of recurrence and is targeted in breast cancer therapy. A high-quality antibody to identify ER-positive patients plays an important role in clinical decision making for women with breast cancer. This study evaluates immunohistochemistry using two anti-ER antibodies, a new rabbit monoclonal antibody (SP1) and the mouse monoclonal antibody (1D5), in relation to biochemical ER assay results and clinical data on survival and adjuvant systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A population-based tissue microarray series of 4,150 invasive breast cancers was constructed. All patients had staging, pathology, treatment, and follow-up information. The median follow-up was 12.4 years and the median age at diagnosis 60 years. Survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to evaluate the prognostic value of ER status and correlations with clinical data. RESULTS: Among the 4,105 samples interpretable for both antibodies, SP1 detected ER positivity in 69.5% and 1D5 in 63.1% of cases. Both monoclonal antibodies are demonstrated to be good prognostic indictors for breast cancer-specific and relapse-free survival. In multivariate analysis, including age, tumor size, grade, and lymphovascular and nodal status, SP1 was a better independent prognostic factor than 1D5. Among patients with discrepant ER results, the 8% of patients who were SP1 positive/1D5 negative showed good outcomes, and the 2% SP1-negative/1D5 positive had poor outcomes. Maintaining the same 92% specificity and 98% positive predictive value, SP1 is 8% more sensitive than 1D5 using biochemical assay as gold standard. CONCLUSION: SP1 represents an improved standard for ER immunohistochemistry assessment in breast cancer.
PURPOSE:Estrogen receptor (ER) expression predicts improved breast cancer-specific survival and reduced risk of recurrence and is targeted in breast cancer therapy. A high-quality antibody to identify ER-positive patients plays an important role in clinical decision making for women with breast cancer. This study evaluates immunohistochemistry using two anti-ER antibodies, a new rabbit monoclonal antibody (SP1) and the mouse monoclonal antibody (1D5), in relation to biochemical ER assay results and clinical data on survival and adjuvant systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A population-based tissue microarray series of 4,150 invasive breast cancers was constructed. All patients had staging, pathology, treatment, and follow-up information. The median follow-up was 12.4 years and the median age at diagnosis 60 years. Survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to evaluate the prognostic value of ER status and correlations with clinical data. RESULTS: Among the 4,105 samples interpretable for both antibodies, SP1 detected ER positivity in 69.5% and 1D5 in 63.1% of cases. Both monoclonal antibodies are demonstrated to be good prognostic indictors for breast cancer-specific and relapse-free survival. In multivariate analysis, including age, tumor size, grade, and lymphovascular and nodal status, SP1 was a better independent prognostic factor than 1D5. Among patients with discrepant ER results, the 8% of patients who were SP1 positive/1D5 negative showed good outcomes, and the 2% SP1-negative/1D5 positive had poor outcomes. Maintaining the same 92% specificity and 98% positive predictive value, SP1 is 8% more sensitive than 1D5 using biochemical assay as gold standard. CONCLUSION: SP1 represents an improved standard for ER immunohistochemistry assessment in breast cancer.
Authors: Kanwal P S Raghav; Leonel F Hernandez-Aya; Xiudong Lei; Marianan Chavez-Macgregor; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Thomas A Buchholz; Aysegul Sahin; Kim-Anh Do; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer Bordeaux; Allison Welsh; Seema Agarwal; Elizabeth Killiam; Maria Baquero; Jason Hanna; Valsamo Anagnostou; David Rimm Journal: Biotechniques Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 1.993
Authors: Kodela Vani; Seshi R Sompuram; Anika K Schaedle; Anuradha Balasubramanian; Monika Pilichowska; Stephen Naber; Jeffrey D Goldsmith; Kueikwun G Chang; Farzad Noubary; Steven A Bogen Journal: J Histochem Cytochem Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.479
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D Craig Allred; Karen L Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Glenn Francis; Neil S Goldstein; Malcolm Hayes; David G Hicks; Susan Lester; Richard Love; Pamela B Mangu; Lisa McShane; Keith Miller; C Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N Schwartz; Fred C G Sweep; Sheila Taube; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel Visscher; Thomas Wheeler; R Bruce Williams; James L Wittliff; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Laura C Collins; Ninah Achacoso; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Suzanne W Fletcher; Reina Haque; Charles P Quesenberry; Balaram Puligandla; Najeeb S Alshak; Lynn C Goldstein; Allen M Gown; Stuart J Schnitt; Laurel A Habel Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Golareh Habibi; Samuel Leung; Jennifer H Law; Karen Gelmon; Hamid Masoudi; Dmitry Turbin; Michael Pollak; Torsten O Nielsen; David Huntsman; Sandra E Dunn Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 6.466