PURPOSE: Recent misclassification (false negative) incidents have raised awareness concerning limitations of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) in breast cancer. Here we define a new method for standardization of ER measurement and then examine both change in percentage and threshold of intensity (immunoreactivity) to assess sources for test discordance. METHODS: An assay was developed to quantify ER by using a control tissue microarray (TMA) and a series of cell lines in which ER immunoreactivity was analyzed by quantitative immunoblotting in parallel with the automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) method of quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF). The assay was used to assess the ER protein expression threshold in two independent retrospective cohorts from Yale and was compared with traditional methods. RESULTS: Two methods of analysis showed that change in percentage of positive cells from 10% to 1% did not significantly affect the overall number of ER-positive patients. The standardized assay for ER on two Yale TMA cohorts showed that 67.9% and 82.5% of the patients were above the 2-pg/μg immunoreactivity threshold. We found 9.1% and 19.7% of the patients to be QIF-positive/IHC-negative, and 4.0% and 0.4% to be QIF-negative/IHC-positive for a total of 13.1% and 20.1% discrepant cases when compared with pathologists' judgment of threshold. Assessment of survival for both cohorts showed that patients who were QIF-positive/pathologist-negative had outcomes similar to those of patients who had positive results for both assays. CONCLUSION: Assessment of intensity threshold by using a quantitative, standardized assay on two independent cohorts suggests discordance in the 10% to 20% range with current IHC methods, in which patients with discrepant results have prognostic outcomes similar to ER-positive patients with concordant results.
PURPOSE: Recent misclassification (false negative) incidents have raised awareness concerning limitations of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) in breast cancer. Here we define a new method for standardization of ER measurement and then examine both change in percentage and threshold of intensity (immunoreactivity) to assess sources for test discordance. METHODS: An assay was developed to quantify ER by using a control tissue microarray (TMA) and a series of cell lines in which ER immunoreactivity was analyzed by quantitative immunoblotting in parallel with the automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) method of quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF). The assay was used to assess the ER protein expression threshold in two independent retrospective cohorts from Yale and was compared with traditional methods. RESULTS: Two methods of analysis showed that change in percentage of positive cells from 10% to 1% did not significantly affect the overall number of ER-positive patients. The standardized assay for ER on two Yale TMA cohorts showed that 67.9% and 82.5% of the patients were above the 2-pg/μg immunoreactivity threshold. We found 9.1% and 19.7% of the patients to be QIF-positive/IHC-negative, and 4.0% and 0.4% to be QIF-negative/IHC-positive for a total of 13.1% and 20.1% discrepant cases when compared with pathologists' judgment of threshold. Assessment of survival for both cohorts showed that patients who were QIF-positive/pathologist-negative had outcomes similar to those of patients who had positive results for both assays. CONCLUSION: Assessment of intensity threshold by using a quantitative, standardized assay on two independent cohorts suggests discordance in the 10% to 20% range with current IHC methods, in which patients with discrepant results have prognostic outcomes similar to ER-positive patients with concordant results.
Authors: Aaron J Berger; Darren W Davis; Carmen Tellez; Victor G Prieto; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Marcella M Johnson; David L Rimm; Menashe Bar-Eli Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Marisa Dolled-Filhart; Anthony McCabe; Jennifer Giltnane; Melissa Cregger; Robert L Camp; David L Rimm Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher B Moeder; Jennifer M Giltnane; Malini Harigopal; Annette Molinaro; Andrew Robinson; Karen Gelmon; David Huntsman; Robert L Camp; David L Rimm Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer M Giltnane; Lisa Rydén; Melissa Cregger; Pär-Ola Bendahl; Karin Jirström; David L Rimm Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; 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 Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Rajbhandari; K A Schalper; N M Solodin; S J Ellison-Zelski; K Ping Lu; D L Rimm; E T Alarid Journal: Oncogene Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Erin K Shanle; Adedayo A Onitilo; Wei Huang; KyungMann Kim; Chong Zang; Jessica M Engel; Wei Xu; Kari B Wisinski Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 4.060