BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the use of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy recently recommended that estrogen receptor (ER) status be considered positive if ≥1% of tumor cells demonstrate positive nuclear staining by immunohistochemistry. In clinical practice, a range of thresholds are used; a common one is 10% positivity. Data addressing the optimal threshold with regard to the efficacy of endocrine therapy are lacking. In this study, we compared patient, tumor, treatment and survival differences among breast cancer patients using ER-positivity thresholds of 1% and 10%. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients with primary breast carcinoma treated at our center from January 1990 to December 2011 and whose records included complete data on ER status. Patients were separated into three groups: ≥10% positive staining for ER (ER-positive ≥10%), 1%-9% positive staining for ER (ER-positive 1%-9%) and <1% positive staining (ER-negative). RESULTS: Of 9639 patients included, 80.5% had tumors that were ER-positive ≥10%, 2.6% had tumors that were ER-positive 1%-9% and 16.9% had tumors that were ER-negative. Patients with ER-positive 1%-9% tumors were younger with more advanced disease compared with patients with ER-positive ≥10% tumors. At a median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients with ER-positive 1%-9% tumors had worse survival rates than did patients with ER-positive ≥10% tumors, with and without adjustment for clinical stage and grade. Survival rates did not differ significantly between patients with ER-positive 1%-9% and ER-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with tumors that are ER-positive 1%-9% have clinical and pathologic characteristics different from those with tumors that are ER-positive ≥10%. Similar to patients with ER-negative tumors, those with ER-positive 1%-9% disease do not appear to benefit from endocrine therapy; further study of its clinical benefit in this group is warranted. Also, there is a need to better define which patients of this group belong to basal or luminal subtypes.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the use of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy recently recommended that estrogen receptor (ER) status be considered positive if ≥1% of tumor cells demonstrate positive nuclear staining by immunohistochemistry. In clinical practice, a range of thresholds are used; a common one is 10% positivity. Data addressing the optimal threshold with regard to the efficacy of endocrine therapy are lacking. In this study, we compared patient, tumor, treatment and survival differences among breast cancerpatients using ER-positivity thresholds of 1% and 10%. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients with primary breast carcinoma treated at our center from January 1990 to December 2011 and whose records included complete data on ER status. Patients were separated into three groups: ≥10% positive staining for ER (ER-positive ≥10%), 1%-9% positive staining for ER (ER-positive 1%-9%) and <1% positive staining (ER-negative). RESULTS: Of 9639 patients included, 80.5% had tumors that were ER-positive ≥10%, 2.6% had tumors that were ER-positive 1%-9% and 16.9% had tumors that were ER-negative. Patients with ER-positive 1%-9% tumors were younger with more advanced disease compared with patients with ER-positive ≥10% tumors. At a median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients with ER-positive 1%-9% tumors had worse survival rates than did patients with ER-positive ≥10% tumors, with and without adjustment for clinical stage and grade. Survival rates did not differ significantly between patients with ER-positive 1%-9% and ER-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with tumors that are ER-positive 1%-9% have clinical and pathologic characteristics different from those with tumors that are ER-positive ≥10%. Similar to patients with ER-negative tumors, those with ER-positive 1%-9% disease do not appear to benefit from endocrine therapy; further study of its clinical benefit in this group is warranted. Also, there is a need to better define which patients of this group belong to basal or luminal subtypes.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer; estrogen receptor; low positive; survival
Authors: Giuseppe Viale; Meredith M Regan; Eugenio Maiorano; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Patrizia Dell'Orto; Birgitte Bruun Rasmussen; Johnny Raffoul; Patrick Neven; Zsolt Orosz; Stephen Braye; Christian Ohlschlegel; Beat Thürlimann; Richard D Gelber; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Karen N Price; Aron Goldhirsch; Barry A Gusterson; Alan S Coates Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Buzdar; A Howell; J Cuzick; C Wale; W Distler; G Hoctin-Boes; J Houghton; G Y Locker; J M Nabholtz Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Takayuki Iwamoto; Daniel Booser; Vicente Valero; James L Murray; Kimberly Koenig; Francisco J Esteva; Naoto T Ueno; Jie Zhang; Weiwei Shi; Yuan Qi; Junji Matsuoka; Elliana J Yang; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Christos Hatzis; W Fraser Symmans; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R M Elledge; S Green; R Pugh; D C Allred; G M Clark; J Hill; P Ravdin; S Martino; C K Osborne Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-03-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; H C Pan; C Taylor; Y C Wang; M Dowsett; J Ingle; R Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gustav Stålhammar; Nelson Fuentes Martinez; Michael Lippert; Nicholas P Tobin; Ida Mølholm; Lorand Kis; Gustaf Rosin; Mattias Rantalainen; Lars Pedersen; Jonas Bergh; Michael Grunkin; Johan Hartman Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Mohamed Amgad; Elisabeth Specht Stovgaard; Eva Balslev; Jeppe Thagaard; Weijie Chen; Sarah Dudgeon; Ashish Sharma; Jennifer K Kerner; Carsten Denkert; Yinyin Yuan; Khalid AbdulJabbar; Stephan Wienert; Peter Savas; Leonie Voorwerk; Andrew H Beck; Anant Madabhushi; Johan Hartman; Manu M Sebastian; Hugo M Horlings; Jan Hudeček; Francesco Ciompi; David A Moore; Rajendra Singh; Elvire Roblin; Marcelo Luiz Balancin; Marie-Christine Mathieu; Jochen K Lennerz; Pawan Kirtani; I-Chun Chen; Jeremy P Braybrooke; Giancarlo Pruneri; Sandra Demaria; Sylvia Adams; Stuart J Schnitt; Sunil R Lakhani; Federico Rojo; Laura Comerma; Sunil S Badve; Mehrnoush Khojasteh; W Fraser Symmans; Christos Sotiriou; Paula Gonzalez-Ericsson; Katherine L Pogue-Geile; Rim S Kim; David L Rimm; Giuseppe Viale; Stephen M Hewitt; John M S Bartlett; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Shom Goel; Huang-Chun Lien; Sibylle Loibl; Zuzana Kos; Sherene Loi; Matthew G Hanna; Stefan Michiels; Marleen Kok; Torsten O Nielsen; Alexander J Lazar; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Loes F S Kooreman; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Joel Saltz; Brandon D Gallas; Uday Kurkure; Michael Barnes; Roberto Salgado; Lee A D Cooper Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-05-12
Authors: J Michael Dixon; David A Cameron; Laura M Arthur; Deborah M Axelrod; Lorna Renshaw; Jeremy S Thomas; Arran Turnbull; Oliver Young; Cynthia A Loman; Debbie Jakubowski; Frederick L Baehner; Baljit Singh Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Lauren E McLemore; Constance T Albarracin; Stephen K Gruschkus; Roland L Bassett; Yun Wu; Sagar Dhamne; Isaiah Yim; Kevin Lin; Isabelle Bedrosian; Nour Sneige; Hui Chen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Takeo Fujii; Jeremy Mason; Angela Chen; Peter Kuhn; Wendy A Woodward; Debu Tripathy; Paul K Newton; Naoto T Ueno Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-04-05
Authors: Halei C Benefield; Emma H Allott; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Charles M Perou; Lisa A Carey; Joseph Geradts; Xuezheng Sun; Benjamin C Calhoun; Melissa A Troester Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506