Literature DB >> 20367311

Variable specimen handling affects hormone receptor test results in women with breast cancer: a large multihospital retrospective study.

Flory L Nkoy1, M Elizabeth H Hammond, William Rees, Tom Belnap, Braden Rowley, Steve Catmull, William Sause.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Intermountain Healthcare hospitals use a single, standardized laboratory and automated testing process for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) tests to minimize testing errors.
OBJECTIVES: To test the (1) variability in ER/PR negativity among hospitals and (2) association between specimen handling conditions and ER/PR negativity.
DESIGN: Retrospective study of women who had breast cancer surgery at 7 Intermountain hospitals and ER/PR tests ordered between 1997 and 2003. Data were extracted from cancer registry. Frequency of ER/PR negativity was calculated for each surgery day and compared among hospitals and between 2 groups: regular (specimens obtained Sunday through Thursday, more likely to be tested within 24 hours of surgery) and prolonged (specimens obtained on Friday and Saturday, more likely to be tested more than 24 hours after surgery) specimen handling conditions.
RESULTS: Five thousand seventy-seven women were tested for ER/PR. The frequency of ER and PR negativity was 20.9% and 27.9%, respectively. It increased with each day of the week for both ER (P = .03) and PR (P = .059) and tended to be higher for prolonged specimens for ER (23.6% versus 20.4%; P = .03) and for PR (30.1% versus 27.4%; P = .11) compared with regular specimens. After controlling for age and tumor size, both ER (P = .02) and PR (P = .02) negativity was significantly different among the hospitals and was associated with prolonged specimens for ER (P = .04) but not for PR (P = .09).
CONCLUSIONS: Estrogen receptor and PR negativity remained highly variable among hospitals despite use of a single laboratory and tended to be significantly associated with prolonged specimen handling. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20367311     DOI: 10.5858/134.4.606

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med        ISSN: 0003-9985            Impact factor:   5.534


  15 in total

1.  Commentary: improving breast cancer testing for patients-the secret sauce is collaboration.

Authors:  M Elizabeth H Hammond
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  Association between low estrogen receptor positive breast cancer and staining performance.

Authors:  Dennis Caruana; Wei Wei; Sandra Martinez-Morilla; David L Rimm; Emily S Reisenbichler
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-02-05

3.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer.

Authors:  Belisario A Arango; Celine L Rivera; Stefan Glück
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 4.060

4.  National Cancer Institute Biospecimen Evidence-Based Practices: a novel approach to pre-analytical standardization.

Authors:  Kelly B Engel; Jim Vaught; Helen M Moore
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 5.  Understanding preanalytical variables and their effects on clinical biomarkers of oncology and immunotherapy.

Authors:  Lokesh Agrawal; Kelly B Engel; Sarah R Greytak; Helen M Moore
Journal:  Semin Cancer Biol       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 15.707

6.  Taming the dragon: genomic biomarkers to individualize the treatment of cancer.

Authors:  Ian J Majewski; René Bernards
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 53.440

7.  Epidemiological Study of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients in North Indian Population: a Hospital-Based Study.

Authors:  Mekhla Gupta; Seema Khanna; Mohan Kumar; Amrita Ghosh Kar; S K Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-03-09

8.  Concordance between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in breast cancer.

Authors:  Aravind Barathi Asogan; Ga Sze Hong; Subash Kumar Arni Prabhakaran
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 1.858

9.  Impact of Preanalytical Factors on the Measurement of Tumor Tissue Biomarkers Using Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Aditi Bagchi; Zachary Madaj; Kelly B Engel; Ping Guan; Daniel C Rohrer; Dana R Valley; Emily Wolfrum; Kristin Feenstra; Nancy Roche; Galen Hostetter; Helen M Moore; Scott D Jewell
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.479

10.  A tissue quality index: an intrinsic control for measurement of effects of preanalytical variables on FFPE tissue.

Authors:  Veronique M Neumeister; Fabio Parisi; Allison M England; Summar Siddiqui; Valsamo Anagnostou; Elizabeth Zarrella; Maria Vassilakopolou; Yalai Bai; Sasha Saylor; Anna Sapino; Yuval Kluger; David G Hicks; Gianni Bussolati; Stephanie Kwei; David L Rimm
Journal:  Lab Invest       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 5.662

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.