Literature DB >> 20586616

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version).

M Elizabeth H Hammond1, 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.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers.
METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance.
RESULTS: Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in pre-analytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20586616     DOI: 10.5858/134.7.e48

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


  371 in total

1.  Small-animal PET of steroid hormone receptors predicts tumor response to endocrine therapy using a preclinical model of breast cancer.

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

Review 2.  Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors Governing the Transcriptional Regulation of ESR1.

Authors:  David K Lung; Rebecca M Reese; Elaine T Alarid
Journal:  Horm Cancer       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 3.869

3.  Controversies concerning the use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy for primary breast cancer.

Authors:  Manfred Kaufmann; Thomas Karn; Eugen Ruckhäberle
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  American society of clinical oncology/college of american pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer.

Authors:  M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Antonio C Wolff; Pamela B Mangu; Sarah Temin
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 5.  Population and target considerations for triple-negative breast cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  Terry Hyslop; Yvonne Michael; Tiffany Avery; Hallgeir Rui
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.851

6.  US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status.

Authors:  Nadia Howlader; Sean F Altekruse; Christopher I Li; Vivien W Chen; Christina A Clarke; Lynn A G Ries; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Quantitative assessment of effect of preanalytic cold ischemic time on protein expression in breast cancer tissues.

Authors:  Veronique M Neumeister; Valsamo Anagnostou; Summar Siddiqui; Allison Michal England; Elizabeth R Zarrella; Maria Vassilakopoulou; Fabio Parisi; Yuval Kluger; David G Hicks; David L Rimm
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Comparison of HER2 amplification status among breast cancer subgroups offers new insights in pathways of breast cancer progression.

Authors:  Kathleen Lambein; Mieke Van Bockstal; Lies Vandemaele; Rudy Van den Broecke; Veronique Cocquyt; Sofie Geenen; Hannelore Denys; Louis Libbrecht
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Development and Validation of an Easy-to-Implement, Practical Algorithm for the Identification of Molecular Subtypes of Gastric Cancer: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications.

Authors:  Jiwon Koh; Keun-Wook Lee; Soo Kyung Nam; An Na Seo; Ji-Won Kim; Jin Won Kim; Do Joong Park; Hyung-Ho Kim; Woo Ho Kim; Hye Seung Lee
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-08-01

10.  Impact of familial risk and mammography screening on prognostic indicators of breast disease among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Meghan J Walker; Lucia Mirea; Kristine Cooper; Mitra Nabavi; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.