PURPOSE: Luminal subtype breast cancer is defined as oestrogen receptor (ER)- and/or progesterone receptor (PR)- positive breast cancer. We detected the expression of ER-α, ER-Β1 and ER-Β2 in the tissue samples of invasive luminal subtype breast cancer patients, evaluated the correlations between these ER statuses and prognosis, and tried to clarify whether the status of ER-α isoforms provides clinically useful information further to what is already provided by the traditional ER-α/PR assay. METHODS: The expression of ER-α, ER-Β1 and ER-Β2 in the paraffin-embedded sections of 162 invasive luminal subtype breast cancer patients was detected with an immunohistochemical staining method. With mid-long-term follow-up, the features of ER-α, ER-Β1 and ER-Β2 status and the correlations between clinical characteristics and the prognosis were analysed. RESULTS: ER-Β1-positive status was correlated with PR (rs=0.217, p<0.01). The median follow-up time was 92 months (range, 4-98 months). Univariate analysis suggested that ER-Β1 status was significantly correlated to diseasefree survival (DFS) time (log rank=3.98, p=0.046), especially in patients with positive lymph nodes (log rank=6.20, p=0.013). In patients with smaller tumour size (=20 mm), negative ER-Β2 status was significantly correlated to overall survival time (log rank=3.87, p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In invasive luminal subtype breast cancers, ER-Β1 is correlated with good prognosis and could be regarded as one of the factors for evaluating DFS time, especially in lymph node-positive patients. There may be some interactions between ER-Β1 and PR. In clinical practice, besides routine detection of ER-α and PR in invasive luminal subtype breast cancers, immunohistochemical staining of ER-Β1 and ER-Β2 should be considered in order to achieve more useful information. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.
PURPOSE: Luminal subtype breast cancer is defined as oestrogen receptor (ER)- and/or progesterone receptor (PR)- positive breast cancer. We detected the expression of ER-α, ER-Β1 and ER-Β2 in the tissue samples of invasive luminal subtype breast cancerpatients, evaluated the correlations between these ER statuses and prognosis, and tried to clarify whether the status of ER-α isoforms provides clinically useful information further to what is already provided by the traditional ER-α/PR assay. METHODS: The expression of ER-α, ER-Β1 and ER-Β2 in the paraffin-embedded sections of 162 invasive luminal subtype breast cancerpatients was detected with an immunohistochemical staining method. With mid-long-term follow-up, the features of ER-α, ER-Β1 and ER-Β2 status and the correlations between clinical characteristics and the prognosis were analysed. RESULTS: ER-Β1-positive status was correlated with PR (rs=0.217, p<0.01). The median follow-up time was 92 months (range, 4-98 months). Univariate analysis suggested that ER-Β1 status was significantly correlated to diseasefree survival (DFS) time (log rank=3.98, p=0.046), especially in patients with positive lymph nodes (log rank=6.20, p=0.013). In patients with smaller tumour size (=20 mm), negative ER-Β2 status was significantly correlated to overall survival time (log rank=3.87, p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In invasive luminal subtype breast cancers, ER-Β1 is correlated with good prognosis and could be regarded as one of the factors for evaluating DFS time, especially in lymph node-positive patients. There may be some interactions between ER-Β1 and PR. In clinical practice, besides routine detection of ER-α and PR in invasive luminal subtype breast cancers, immunohistochemical staining of ER-Β1 and ER-Β2 should be considered in order to achieve more useful information. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Authors: Dan Tong; Eva Schuster; Michael Seifert; Klaus Czerwenka; Sepp Leodolte; Robert Zeillinger Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: L Nakopoulou; A C Lazaris; E G Panayotopoulou; I Giannopoulou; N Givalos; S Markaki; A Keramopoulos Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Abeer M Shaaban; Andrew R Green; Suchita Karthik; Yalda Alizadeh; Thomas A Hughes; Lynn Harkins; Ian O Ellis; John F Robertson; Emma C Paish; Philippa T K Saunders; Nigel P Groome; Valerie Speirs Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Martha Patricia Gallegos-Arreola; Guillermo M Zúñiga-González; Luis E Figuera; Ana María Puebla-Pérez; María Guadalupe Márquez-Rosales; Belinda Claudia Gómez-Meda; Mónica Alejandra Rosales-Reynoso Journal: PeerJ Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 3.061