BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to address a persistent controversy as to whether the ER status of a primary tumor remains stable during progression to metastasis and to evaluate the influence of disease course and prior systemic therapy on ER status. METHODS: Breast carcinomas from 227 women with known ER status in both primary tumor and paired metastasis were retrospectively reviewed. ER status was compared between primary and metastatic tumors with respect to metastatic site, interval between two ER assays, and intervening chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Semiquantitative comparison of ER values was performed for 92 tumor pairs. RESULTS: ER status agreed in 210 (92.5%) patients, including 147 positive and 63 negative. Of the 17 patients (7.5%) with discordant ER status, both negative to positive conversion (n = 7) and positive to negative conversion (n = 10) were observed. ER discordance was not significantly associated with metastatic site (locoregional vs distant), time interval between assays (< 5 years vs. ≥ 5 years), or intervening chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Semiquantitative levels of ER expression were similar between primary and metastatic tumors. In discordant cases, variations in testing methods and marginal scores were common. CONCLUSIONS: ER status in breast carcinoma is generally stable during progression to metastasis. Preanalytical and analytical variability may contribute to discordance in some cases. Given the importance of ER status for clinical management, ER testing in metastatic breast carcinoma should be repeated, especially for patients whose clinical courses are not compatible with stated ER status.
BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to address a persistent controversy as to whether the ER status of a primary tumor remains stable during progression to metastasis and to evaluate the influence of disease course and prior systemic therapy on ER status. METHODS:Breast carcinomas from 227 women with known ER status in both primary tumor and paired metastasis were retrospectively reviewed. ER status was compared between primary and metastatic tumors with respect to metastatic site, interval between two ER assays, and intervening chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Semiquantitative comparison of ER values was performed for 92 tumor pairs. RESULTS: ER status agreed in 210 (92.5%) patients, including 147 positive and 63 negative. Of the 17 patients (7.5%) with discordant ER status, both negative to positive conversion (n = 7) and positive to negative conversion (n = 10) were observed. ER discordance was not significantly associated with metastatic site (locoregional vs distant), time interval between assays (< 5 years vs. ≥ 5 years), or intervening chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Semiquantitative levels of ER expression were similar between primary and metastatic tumors. In discordant cases, variations in testing methods and marginal scores were common. CONCLUSIONS: ER status in breast carcinoma is generally stable during progression to metastasis. Preanalytical and analytical variability may contribute to discordance in some cases. Given the importance of ER status for clinical management, ER testing in metastatic breast carcinoma should be repeated, especially for patients whose clinical courses are not compatible with stated ER status.
Authors: Rinath Jeselsohn; MacIntosh Cornwell; Matthew Pun; Gilles Buchwalter; Mai Nguyen; Clyde Bango; Ying Huang; Yanan Kuang; Cloud Paweletz; Xiaoyong Fu; Agostina Nardone; Carmine De Angelis; Simone Detre; Andrew Dodson; Hisham Mohammed; Jason S Carroll; Michaela Bowden; Prakash Rao; Henry W Long; Fugen Li; Mitchell Dowsett; Rachel Schiff; Myles Brown Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Renata Duchnowska; Jeff Sperinde; Ahmed Chenna; Weidong Huang; Jodi M Weidler; John Winslow; Mojgan Haddad; Agnes Paquet; Yolanda Lie; Tomasz Trojanowski; Tomasz Mandat; Anna Kowalczyk; Bogumiła Czartoryska-Arłukowicz; Barbara Radecka; Bożena Jarosz; Rafal Staszkiewicz; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Małgorzata Chudzik; Wojciech Biernat; Jacek Jassem Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: P A Fasching; S Y Brucker; T N Fehm; F Overkamp; W Janni; M Wallwiener; P Hadji; E Belleville; L Häberle; F-A Taran; D Lüftner; M P Lux; J Ettl; V Müller; H Tesch; D Wallwiener; A Schneeweiss Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Paul W Sperduto; Shane Mesko; Jing Li; Daniel Cagney; Ayal Aizer; Nancy U Lin; Eric Nesbit; Tim J Kruser; Jason Chan; Steve Braunstein; Jessica Lee; John P Kirkpatrick; Will Breen; Paul D Brown; Diana Shi; Helen A Shih; Hany Soliman; Arjun Sahgal; Ryan Shanley; William Sperduto; Emil Lou; Ashlyn Everett; Drexell Hunter Boggs; Laura Masucci; David Roberge; Jill Remick; Kristin Plichta; John M Buatti; Supriya Jain; Laurie E Gaspar; Cheng-Chia Wu; Tony J C Wang; John Bryant; Michael Chuong; James Yu; Veronica Chiang; Toshimichi Nakano; Hidefumi Aoyama; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Xiaoxian Li; Michael T Deavers; Ming Guo; Ping Liu; Yun Gong; Constance T Albarracin; Lavinia P Middleton; Lei Huo Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 7.842