Nikhilesh Kumar1, Preeti Patni2, A Agarwal3, M A Khan4, Nidhi Parashar5. 1. Consultant & Head (Pathology), Dept of Laboratory Medicine & Transfusion Medicine, Command Hospital (Central Command), Lucknow, India. 2. Classified Specialist (Pathology), Military Hospital, Gaya, Bihar, India. 3. Classified Specialist (Path & Micro), Command Hospital (Central Command), Lucknow, India. 4. Classified Specialist (Pathology), Command Hospital (Central Command), Lucknow, India. 5. Resident (Pathology), Command Hospital (Central Command), Lucknow, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Classification of breast cancers into different molecular subtypes using immunohistochemistry as a surrogate tool to DNA microarray technology has been identified. Aim of this study was to find the precise prevalence of molecular subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma using immunohistochemistry and to correlate it with histological and clinical prognostic factors. METHODS: A descriptive study design wherein 56 breast carcinoma cases diagnosed between May 2012 and Apr 2014 were reviewed and molecular subtyped using relevant immunohistochemical markers. Age, histological type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymphovascular emboli (LVE), nodal status and basal marker expressions were analyzed for all cases. Correlations between molecular subtypes and clinico-pathological characteristics were evaluated statistically. RESULTS: In our study group, average age of patients was 50.5 years and most of patients were diagnosed in stage II (54%). Luminal A subtype was most prevalent 34%, followed by Basal like/Triple negative subtype 25%. Luminal B and Her2/neu subtypes had same prevalence i.e. 18% each and Breast Tissue like/Unclassified subtype/Penta Negative subtype was 5%. All cases demonstrated positivity for the luminal cytokeratins 8/18. Histological grade and ER negative status showed strong correlations with basal markers. CONCLUSION: On the basis of hormone receptor, Her2 neu, EGFR and CK 5/6 expressions, breast carcinoma cases were classified into five distinct molecular subtypes which show significant differences in regards to morphological features, prognostic markers and there by predicting possible clinical outcome.
BACKGROUND: Classification of breast cancers into different molecular subtypes using immunohistochemistry as a surrogate tool to DNA microarray technology has been identified. Aim of this study was to find the precise prevalence of molecular subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma using immunohistochemistry and to correlate it with histological and clinical prognostic factors. METHODS: A descriptive study design wherein 56 breast carcinoma cases diagnosed between May 2012 and Apr 2014 were reviewed and molecular subtyped using relevant immunohistochemical markers. Age, histological type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymphovascular emboli (LVE), nodal status and basal marker expressions were analyzed for all cases. Correlations between molecular subtypes and clinico-pathological characteristics were evaluated statistically. RESULTS: In our study group, average age of patients was 50.5 years and most of patients were diagnosed in stage II (54%). Luminal A subtype was most prevalent 34%, followed by Basal like/Triple negative subtype 25%. Luminal B and Her2/neu subtypes had same prevalence i.e. 18% each and Breast Tissue like/Unclassified subtype/Penta Negative subtype was 5%. All cases demonstrated positivity for the luminal cytokeratins 8/18. Histological grade and ER negative status showed strong correlations with basal markers. CONCLUSION: On the basis of hormone receptor, Her2neu, EGFR and CK 5/6 expressions, breast carcinoma cases were classified into five distinct molecular subtypes which show significant differences in regards to morphological features, prognostic markers and there by predicting possible clinical outcome.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Immunohistochemistry; Molecular classification
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Jaime de la Garza Salazar; Kathleen Pritchard; Dino Amadori; Renate Haidinger; Clifford A Hudis; Hussein Khaled; Mei-Ching Liu; Miguel Martin; Moise Namer; Joyce A O'Shaughnessy; Zhen Zhou Shen; Kathy S Albain Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Raquel C M Fernandes; Jose L B Bevilacqua; Ibere C Soares; Sheila A C Siqueira; Luis Pires; Roberto Hegg; Filomena M Carvalho Journal: Histopathology Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Stefano Calza; Per Hall; Gert Auer; Judith Bjöhle; Sigrid Klaar; Ulrike Kronenwett; Edison T Liu; Lance Miller; Alexander Ploner; Johanna Smeds; Jonas Bergh; Yudi Pawitan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2006 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Laura G Fulford; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Ken Ryder; Chris Jones; Cheryl E Gillett; Andrew Hanby; Douglas Easton; Sunil R Lakhani Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Mervi Jumppanen; Sofia Gruvberger-Saal; Päivikki Kauraniemi; Minna Tanner; Pär-Ola Bendahl; Mikael Lundin; Morten Krogh; Pasi Kataja; Ake Borg; Mårten Fernö; Jorma Isola Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Bharath Rangarajan; Tanuja Shet; Tabassum Wadasadawala; Nita S Nair; R Madhu Sairam; Sachin S Hingmire; Jyoti Bajpai Journal: South Asian J Cancer Date: 2016 Jul-Sep