BACKGROUND: We evaluated discordance in expression measurements for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 between primary and recurrent tumors in patients with recurrent breast cancer and its effect on prognosis. METHODS: A total of 789 patients with recurrent breast cancer were studied. ER, PR, and HER2 status were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or FISH. Repeat markers for ER, PR, and HER2 were available in 28.9%, 27.6%, and 70.0%, respectively. Primary and recurrent tumors were classified as triple receptor-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or receptor-positive breast cancer (RPBC, i.e. expressing at least one receptor). Discordance was correlated with clinical/pathological parameters. RESULTS: Discordance for ER, PR, and HER2 was 18.4%, 40.3%, and 13.6%, respectively. Patients with concordant RPBC had significantly better post-recurrence survival (PRS) than discordant cases; patients with discordant receptor status had similarly unfavorable survival as patients with concordant TNBC. IHC scores for ER and PR showed weak concordance between primary and recurrent tumors. Concordance of HER2-FISH scores was higher. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance of quantitative hormone receptor measurements between primary and recurrent tumors is modest consistent with suboptimal reproducibility of measurement methods, particularly for IHC. Discordant cases have poor survival probably due to inappropriate use of targeted therapies. However, biological change in clinical phenotype cannot be completely excluded.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated discordance in expression measurements for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 between primary and recurrent tumors in patients with recurrent breast cancer and its effect on prognosis. METHODS: A total of 789 patients with recurrent breast cancer were studied. ER, PR, and HER2 status were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or FISH. Repeat markers for ER, PR, and HER2 were available in 28.9%, 27.6%, and 70.0%, respectively. Primary and recurrent tumors were classified as triple receptor-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or receptor-positive breast cancer (RPBC, i.e. expressing at least one receptor). Discordance was correlated with clinical/pathological parameters. RESULTS: Discordance for ER, PR, and HER2 was 18.4%, 40.3%, and 13.6%, respectively. Patients with concordant RPBC had significantly better post-recurrence survival (PRS) than discordant cases; patients with discordant receptor status had similarly unfavorable survival as patients with concordant TNBC. IHC scores for ER and PR showed weak concordance between primary and recurrent tumors. Concordance of HER2-FISH scores was higher. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance of quantitative hormone receptor measurements between primary and recurrent tumors is modest consistent with suboptimal reproducibility of measurement methods, particularly for IHC. Discordant cases have poor survival probably due to inappropriate use of targeted therapies. However, biological change in clinical phenotype cannot be completely excluded.
Authors: F Cardoso; A Di Leo; D Larsimont; D Gancberg; G Rouas; S Dolci; F Ferreira; M Paesmans; M Piccart Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: R Simon; A Nocito; T Hübscher; C Bucher; J Torhorst; P Schraml; L Bubendorf; M M Mihatsch; H Moch; K Wilber; A Schötzau; J Kononen; G Sauter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Louis P. Pertschuk; Constantine A. Axiotis; Joseph G. Feldman; Yong-Doo Kim; Sebastian J. Karavattayhayyil; Lorraine Braithwaite Journal: Breast J Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Britta Weigelt; Annuska M Glas; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Anke T Witteveen; Johannes L Peterse; Laura J van't Veer Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-12-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Amy M Fowler; Szeman Ruby Chan; Terry L Sharp; Nicole M Fettig; Dong Zhou; Carmen S Dence; Kathryn E Carlson; M Jeyakumar; John A Katzenellenbogen; Robert D Schreiber; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David M Gershenson; Charlotte C Sun; Revathy B Iyer; Anais L Malpica; John J Kavanagh; Diane C Bodurka; Kathleen Schmeler; Michael Deavers Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Jaime Ferrer-Lozano; Katherine Stemke-Hale; Aysegul Sahin; Shuying Liu; Juan A Barrera; Octavio Burgues; Ana M Lluch; Huiqin Chen; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Gordon B Mills; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 6.261