Literature DB >> 18230800

Comparison of estrogen receptor results from pathology reports with results from central laboratory testing.

Laura C Collins1, Jonathan D Marotti, Heather J Baer, Rulla M Tamimi.   

Abstract

We compared estrogen receptor (ER) assay results abstracted from pathology reports with ER results determined on the same specimens by a central laboratory with an immunohistochemical assay. Paraffin sections were cut from tissue microarrays containing 3093 breast cancer specimens from women enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study, 1851 of which had both pathology reports and tissue available for central laboratory testing. All sections were immunostained for ER at the same time. The original assays were biochemical for 1512 (81.7%) of the 1851 specimens, immunohistochemical for 336 (18.2%), and immunofluorescent for three (0.2%). ER results from pathology reports and repeat central laboratory testing were in agreement for 87.3% of specimens (1615 of the 1851 specimens; kappa statistic = 0.64, P < .001). When the comparison was restricted to the specimens for which the ER assays were originally performed by immunohistochemistry, the agreement rate increased to 92.3% of specimens (310 of the 336 specimens; kappa statistic = 0.78, P < .001). Thus, ER assay results from pathology reports appear to be a reasonable alternative to central laboratory ER testing for large, population-based studies of patients with breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18230800      PMCID: PMC4014130          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  10 in total

1.  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.

Authors:  A Rhodes; B Jasani; A J Balaton; D M Barnes; E Anderson; L G Bobrow; K D Miller
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.493

2.  Variability in gross and microscopic pathology reporting in excisional biopsies of breast cancer tissue.

Authors:  Sophia K Apple
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  c-erbB-2 (HER-2/neu) immunohistochemistry in invasive breast cancer: is there concordance between standard sections and tissue microarrays?

Authors:  Sathiyamoorthy Selvarajan; Soo Yong Tan; Lang Hiong Sii; Puay Hoon Tan
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.306

4.  Bimodal frequency distribution of estrogen receptor immunohistochemical staining results in breast cancer: an analysis of 825 cases.

Authors:  Laura C Collins; Maria L Botero; Stuart J Schnitt
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  Validation of tissue microarray technology in breast carcinoma.

Authors:  R L Camp; L A Charette; D L Rimm
Journal:  Lab Invest       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.662

6.  Evaluation of HER-2/neu oncogene status in breast tumors on tissue microarrays.

Authors:  Daohai Zhang; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Elaine Do; Thomas Choudary Putti; Evelyn S C Koay
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.466

7.  Concordance with breast cancer pathology reporting practice guidelines.

Authors:  Neal W Wilkinson; Azin Shahryarinejad; Janet S Winston; Nancy Watroba; Stephen B Edge
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Reliability of tissue microarrays in detecting protein expression and gene amplification in breast cancer.

Authors:  DaoHai Zhang; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Thomas Choudary Putti; Elaine Do; Evelyn Siew-Chuan Koay
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 7.842

9.  Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens.

Authors:  J Kononen; L Bubendorf; A Kallioniemi; M Bärlund; P Schraml; S Leighton; J Torhorst; M J Mihatsch; G Sauter; O P Kallioniemi
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 53.440

10.  Validation of a tissue microarray to study differential protein expression in inflammatory and non-inflammatory breast cancer.

Authors:  G G Van den Eynden; I Van der Auwera; S Van Laere; C G Colpaert; P van Dam; S Merajver; C G Kleer; A L Harris; E A Van Marck; L Y Dirix; P B Vermeulen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.872

  10 in total
  45 in total

Review 1.  Practical implications of gene-expression-based assays for breast oncologists.

Authors:  Aleix Prat; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Urinary estrogens and estrogen metabolites and subsequent risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women.

Authors:  A Heather Eliassen; Donna Spiegelman; Xia Xu; Larry K Keefer; Timothy D Veenstra; Robert L Barbieri; Walter C Willett; Susan E Hankinson; Regina G Ziegler
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  Traditional breast cancer risk factors in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

Authors:  Rulla M Tamimi; Graham A Colditz; Aditi Hazra; Heather J Baer; Susan E Hankinson; Bernard Rosner; Jonathan Marotti; James L Connolly; Stuart J Schnitt; Laura C Collins
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  Tamoxifen and CYP2D6: a contradiction of data.

Authors:  Daniel L Hertz; Howard L McLeod; William J Irvin
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-04-24

5.  Standardization of estrogen receptor measurement in breast cancer suggests false-negative results are a function of threshold intensity rather than percentage of positive cells.

Authors:  Allison W Welsh; Christopher B Moeder; Sudha Kumar; Peter Gershkovich; Elaine T Alarid; Malini Harigopal; Bruce G Haffty; David L Rimm
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Origin, Methods, and Evolution of the Three Nurses' Health Studies.

Authors:  Ying Bao; Monica L Bertoia; Elizabeth B Lenart; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett; Frank E Speizer; Jorge E Chavarro
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Estrogen receptor positive tumors: do reproductive factors explain differences in incidence between black and white women?

Authors:  Erica T Warner; Rulla M Tamimi; Deborah A Boggs; Bernard Rosner; Lynn Rosenberg; Graham A Colditz; Julie R Palmer
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 8.  [Translational research and diagnostics for breast cancer].

Authors:  H H Kreipe
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.011

9.  Digoxin use and risk of invasive breast cancer: evidence from the Nurses' Health Study and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Thomas P Ahern; Rulla M Tamimi; Bernard A Rosner; Susan E Hankinson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 10.  [Beyond staging, typing and grading. New challenges in breast cancer pathology].

Authors:  H H Kreipe; P Ahrens; M Christgen; U Lehmann; F Länger
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.011

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.