OBJECTIVE: To determine the scoring of Estrogen Receptor (ER) status in carcinoma breast by Allred method that is essentially bimodal and to compare the results with a conventional scoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, comparative study carried out at Aga Khan University Hospital Section of Histopathology over a period of 18 months, i.e., Jan 2005 to June 2006. Anti ER antibody (clone D07) was used for all IHC stains using envision detection system. ER stains of 860 consecutive breast cancer cases were reviewed and rescored by both conventional and Allred method of ER scoring. RESULTS: Comparison of results showed that there was a substantial decrease in weak positive cases from 18% to 5% by rescoring using Allred scoring system compared to conventional scoring. The data was analyzed using chi square test. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of Allred method were calculated; Sensitivity of Allred method was 99.4% & Specificity of Allred method was 99.5% whereas sensitivity and specificity of conventional method was 88.0% and 84% respectively
OBJECTIVE: To determine the scoring of Estrogen Receptor (ER) status in carcinoma breast by Allred method that is essentially bimodal and to compare the results with a conventional scoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, comparative study carried out at Aga Khan University Hospital Section of Histopathology over a period of 18 months, i.e., Jan 2005 to June 2006. Anti ER antibody (clone D07) was used for all IHC stains using envision detection system. ER stains of 860 consecutive breast cancer cases were reviewed and rescored by both conventional and Allred method of ER scoring. RESULTS: Comparison of results showed that there was a substantial decrease in weak positive cases from 18% to 5% by rescoring using Allred scoring system compared to conventional scoring. The data was analyzed using chi square test. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of Allred method were calculated; Sensitivity of Allred method was 99.4% & Specificity of Allred method was 99.5% whereas sensitivity and specificity of conventional method was 88.0% and 84% respectively
Authors: T Akaike; J Qazi; A Anderson; F S Behnia; M M Shinohara; G Akaike; D S Hippe; H Thomas; S R Takagishi; K Lachance; S Y Park; E S Tarabadkar; J G Iyer; A Blom; U Parvathaneni; H Vesselle; P Nghiem; S Bhatia Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Priscilla Ming Yi Lee; Chi Hei Kwok; Wing Cheong Chan; Cherry Wu; Koon-Ho Tsang; Sze-Hong Law; Yiu-Cheong Yeung; Feng Wang; Xiaohong R Yang; Lap Ah Tse Journal: Horm Cancer Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Julia Thierauf; Johannes A Veit; Jochen K Lennerz; Stephanie E Weissinger; Annette Affolter; Johannes Döscher; Christoph Bergmann; Andreas Knopf; Jennifer Grünow; Lisa Grünmüller; Cornelia Mauch; Peter K Plinkert; Thomas K Hoffmann; Jochen Hess Journal: Head Neck Pathol Date: 2016-11-14
Authors: Nasr M A Allahloubi; Abdel-Rahman N Zekri; Mohamed Ragab; Marwa Mohanad; Ola S Ahmed; Salem Eid; Mohamed Ghareeb; Iman Gouda; Abeer A Bahnassy Journal: Biochem Genet Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 1.890
Authors: Cynthia X Ma; Vera Suman; Matthew P Goetz; Donald Northfelt; Mark E Burkard; Foluso Ademuyiwa; Michael Naughton; Julie Margenthaler; Rebecca Aft; Richard Gray; Amye Tevaarwerk; Lee Wilke; Tufia Haddad; Timothy Moynihan; Charles Loprinzi; Tina Hieken; Erica K Barnell; Zachary L Skidmore; Yan-Yang Feng; Kilannin Krysiak; Jeremy Hoog; Zhanfang Guo; Leslie Nehring; Kari B Wisinski; Elaine Mardis; Ian S Hagemann; Kiran Vij; Souzan Sanati; Hussam Al-Kateb; Obi L Griffith; Malachi Griffith; Laurence Doyle; Charles Erlichman; Matthew J Ellis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 13.801