INTRODUCTION: Accurate assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) expression is crucial to ensure that patients with early breast cancer are accurately identified for appropriate treatment with endocrine therapy. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), compared with immunohistochemistry (IHC), may provide a more precise indication of ER status. Data were pooled and analyzed from two independent, but similarly designed, studies that examined ER status by IHC and the 21-gene Recurrence Score that employs RT-PCR-based methodology. METHODS: Tumor tissue from patients with early stage breast cancer where ER status could be determined by both IHC and RT-PCR was included. ER status by IHC staining was defined as ER-negative (< 1%), ER-low+ (1-10%), or ER+ (> 10%). ER status by RT-PCR was defined as ER-negative (≤ 6.5) or ER+ (> 6.5). Recurrence Score results from the 21-gene assay were reported on a continuous scale from 0 to 100. A sub-analysis examined the association between ER expression (Allred score 2-7) and response to a 14-day pre-surgery pulse with an aromatase inhibitor. A separate sub-analysis examined the association between ER expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. RESULTS: Tumor specimens from 192 patients (aged 25-92 years) were included in the pooled analysis. Correlation between IHC- and RT-PCR-measured ER was strong for IHC-defined ER-negative and ER+ samples (r = 0.646 [95% CI 0.553-0.720]). There was 100% concordance for ER+ tumors; however, 56% of the ER-low+ tumors were negative by RT-PCR. Allred score correlated better with ER status measured by RT-PCR at pre-treatment (r = 0.83) than at post-treatment (r = 0.76). The majority (77%) of ER-negative and ER-low+ tumors were HER2-negative. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR provided a more accurate assessment of ER expression in patients with ER-low+ tumors, and data support dual testing for patients with ER-low+ status to ensure appropriate treatment planning as it pertains to endocrine therapy. FUNDING: Genomic Health, Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) expression is crucial to ensure that patients with early breast cancer are accurately identified for appropriate treatment with endocrine therapy. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), compared with immunohistochemistry (IHC), may provide a more precise indication of ER status. Data were pooled and analyzed from two independent, but similarly designed, studies that examined ER status by IHC and the 21-gene Recurrence Score that employs RT-PCR-based methodology. METHODS: Tumor tissue from patients with early stage breast cancer where ER status could be determined by both IHC and RT-PCR was included. ER status by IHC staining was defined as ER-negative (< 1%), ER-low+ (1-10%), or ER+ (> 10%). ER status by RT-PCR was defined as ER-negative (≤ 6.5) or ER+ (> 6.5). Recurrence Score results from the 21-gene assay were reported on a continuous scale from 0 to 100. A sub-analysis examined the association between ER expression (Allred score 2-7) and response to a 14-day pre-surgery pulse with an aromatase inhibitor. A separate sub-analysis examined the association between ER expression and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. RESULTS: Tumor specimens from 192 patients (aged 25-92 years) were included in the pooled analysis. Correlation between IHC- and RT-PCR-measured ER was strong for IHC-defined ER-negative and ER+ samples (r = 0.646 [95% CI 0.553-0.720]). There was 100% concordance for ER+ tumors; however, 56% of the ER-low+ tumors were negative by RT-PCR. Allred score correlated better with ER status measured by RT-PCR at pre-treatment (r = 0.83) than at post-treatment (r = 0.76). The majority (77%) of ER-negative and ER-low+ tumors were HER2-negative. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR provided a more accurate assessment of ER expression in patients with ER-low+ tumors, and data support dual testing for patients with ER-low+ status to ensure appropriate treatment planning as it pertains to endocrine therapy. FUNDING: Genomic Health, Inc.
Authors: M Yi; L Huo; K B Koenig; E A Mittendorf; F Meric-Bernstam; H M Kuerer; I Bedrosian; A U Buzdar; W F Symmans; J R Crow; M Bender; R R Shah; G N Hortobagyi; K K Hunt Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Ivana Sestak; Richard Buus; Elena Lopez-Knowles; Elizabeth Mallon; Anthony Howell; John F Forbes; Aman Buzdar; Jack Cuzick Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Jyothi S Prabhu; Aruna Korlimarla; Krisha Desai; Annie Alexander; Rohini Raghavan; Ce Anupama; Nandini Dendukuri; Suraj Manjunath; Marjorrie Correa; N Raman; Anjali Kalamdani; Msn Prasad; K S Gopinath; B S Srinath; T S Sridhar Journal: J Cancer Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Vincent Walter; Chiara Fischer; Thomas M Deutsch; Catherine Ersing; Juliane Nees; Florian Schütz; Carlo Fremd; Eva-Maria Grischke; Peter Sinn; Sara Y Brucker; Andreas Schneeweiss; Andreas D Hartkopf; Markus Wallwiener Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Elena Lopez-Knowles; Simone Detre; Margaret Hills; Eugene F Schuster; Maggie C U Cheang; Holly Tovey; Lucy S Kilburn; Judith M Bliss; John Robertson; Elizabeth Mallon; Anthony Skene; Abigail Evans; Ian Smith; Mitch Dowsett Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 8.408