Mohamed I El Hag1, Amani M Hag2,3, Jennifer P Ha4, Claire W Michael5. 1. Department of Anatomic Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Mercy St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH, USA. 3. Master of Science program in Clinical Research, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Akron Children Hospital, Akron, OH, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center/Case Western Reserve University, MSPTH 5077, 11100 Euclid Ave Rm 212B, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: GATA-3 is a potential marker for detection of metastatic breast carcinoma, reportedly more sensitive than mammaglobin (MAM) and GCDFP-15. We aim to compare the sensitivity of GATA-3, MAM and GCDFP-15 in determining the breast origin of malignant effusions. METHODS: Cell blocks from 27 cases of serous effusions positive for metastatic breast cancer were retrieved. Immunohistochemistry for GATA-3, MAM, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 (GCDFP-15), estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) was performed on cell-block micro-array. Statistical analysis using two ways Chi square, one-way ANOVA and multiple regression was performed. RESULTS: The detection rate of breast cancer in serous fluid was significantly higher with GATA-3 (88.8 %, X2=15.9, p=0.00034) than with MAM (51.8 %) and GCDFP-15 (37.0 %). All ER positive cases (19) were GATA-3 positive. Conversely, all GATA-3 negative cases (3) were ER negative. The intensity of stain and percentage of positive cells were significantly higher with GATA-3 (p<0.0001) than with MAM and GCDFP-15. The intensity and percentage of positive cells score of GATA-3 were statistically associated with ER stain intensity and percentage of positive cell scores. CONCLUSIONS: GATA3 is a sensitive marker, superior to MAM and GCDFP-15 in determining the breast origin of metastatic adenocarcinoma. It is also strongly associated with ER expression.
BACKGROUND: GATA-3 is a potential marker for detection of metastatic breast carcinoma, reportedly more sensitive than mammaglobin (MAM) and GCDFP-15. We aim to compare the sensitivity of GATA-3, MAM and GCDFP-15 in determining the breast origin of malignant effusions. METHODS: Cell blocks from 27 cases of serous effusions positive for metastatic breast cancer were retrieved. Immunohistochemistry for GATA-3, MAM, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 (GCDFP-15), estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) was performed on cell-block micro-array. Statistical analysis using two ways Chi square, one-way ANOVA and multiple regression was performed. RESULTS: The detection rate of breast cancer in serous fluid was significantly higher with GATA-3 (88.8 %, X2=15.9, p=0.00034) than with MAM (51.8 %) and GCDFP-15 (37.0 %). All ER positive cases (19) were GATA-3 positive. Conversely, all GATA-3 negative cases (3) were ER negative. The intensity of stain and percentage of positive cells were significantly higher with GATA-3 (p<0.0001) than with MAM and GCDFP-15. The intensity and percentage of positive cells score of GATA-3 were statistically associated with ER stain intensity and percentage of positive cell scores. CONCLUSIONS: GATA3 is a sensitive marker, superior to MAM and GCDFP-15 in determining the breast origin of metastatic adenocarcinoma. It is also strongly associated with ER expression.
Entities:
Keywords:
GATA-3; GCDFP-15; breast carcinoma; malignant effusion; mammaglobin; serous fluid
Authors: Marie-Liesse Asselin-Labat; Kate D Sutherland; François Vaillant; David E Gyorki; Di Wu; Sheridan Holroyd; Kelsey Breslin; Teresa Ward; Wei Shi; Mary L Bath; Siddhartha Deb; Stephen B Fox; Gordon K Smyth; Geoffrey J Lindeman; Jane E Visvader Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Sung-Yun Pai; Morgan L Truitt; Chao-Nan Ting; Jeffrey M Leiden; Laurie H Glimcher; I-Cheng Ho Journal: Immunity Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 31.745
Authors: Marie-Liesse Asselin-Labat; Kate D Sutherland; Holly Barker; Richard Thomas; Mark Shackleton; Natasha C Forrest; Lynne Hartley; Lorraine Robb; Frank G Grosveld; Jacqueline van der Wees; Geoffrey J Lindeman; Jane E Visvader Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2006-12-24 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: Jérôme Eeckhoute; Erika Krasnickas Keeton; Mathieu Lupien; Susan A Krum; Jason S Carroll; Myles Brown Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Markku Miettinen; Peter A McCue; Maarit Sarlomo-Rikala; Janusz Rys; Piotr Czapiewski; Krzysztof Wazny; Renata Langfort; Piotr Waloszczyk; Wojciech Biernat; Jerzy Lasota; Zengfeng Wang Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 6.394