Literature DB >> 31883437

Hormone receptor and HER2 assessment in breast carcinoma metastatic to bone: A comparison between FNA cell blocks and decalcified core needle biopsies.

Jennifer Zeng1, Salvatore Piscuoglio1,2, Gitika Aggarwal1, Joanna Magda1, Maria A Friedlander1, Melissa Murray1, Muzaffar Akram1, Jorge S Reis-Filho1, Britta Weigelt1, Marcia Edelweiss1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemistry (IHC) guide the clinical management of breast cancer metastases. Decalcification of bone core needle biopsies (CNBs) can affect IHC. In the current study, the authors sought to define whether fine-needle aspiration (FNA) would be a better alternative to CNB for reliable IHC.
METHODS: Patients with breast cancer metastases to bone that were sampled by both CNB and FNA were selected. ER, PR, and HER2 were performed in FNA cell blocks (FNA-CBs) and concurrent decalcified CNBs. Discrepancies were classified as minor when there was a difference of up to 30% nuclear staining in IHC for ER and PR between paired samples and as major when a clinically relevant change was observed (ie, positive vs negative). Quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction of ESR1 messenger RNA levels was performed on FNA/CNB pairs with discrepancies for ER IHC. IHC status of the primary breast carcinoma was recorded.
RESULTS: Concordance rates for ER, PR, and HER2 were 89%, 67%, and 93%, respectively, between FNA-CB and CNB pairs from 27 patients. Major discrepancies were noted in approximately 11% of FNA/CNB pairs for ER IHC and in 33% of FNA/CNB pairs for PR. ESR1 messenger RNA levels of FNA/CNB matched samples were similar and did not explain the differences in ER IHC expression in the majority of cases. Two of 27 FNA/CNB pairs had different results for HER2 IHC that changed from negative on CNB to equivocal (2+) on FNA-CB. Both cases had prior HER2 amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization.
CONCLUSIONS: FNA-CB and CNB appear to constitute acceptable methods for the assessment of ER, PR, and HER2 for clinical decision making.
© 2019 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bone metastasis; decalcification; estrogen receptor; fine-needle aspiration; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2); immunohistochemistry; metastatic breast carcinoma; progesterone receptor

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31883437      PMCID: PMC7027380          DOI: 10.1002/cncy.22226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol        ISSN: 1934-662X            Impact factor:   5.284


  50 in total

1.  Should liver metastases of breast cancer be biopsied to improve treatment choice?

Authors:  G Curigliano; V Bagnardi; G Viale; L Fumagalli; N Rotmensz; G Aurilio; M Locatelli; G Pruneri; S Giudici; M Bellomi; P Della Vigna; L Monfardini; F Orsi; F Nolè; E Munzone; A Goldhirsch
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  Comparison of HER-2 status determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization in primary and metastatic breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Yun Gong; Daniel J Booser; Nour Sneige
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Hormone receptor and c-ERBB2 status in distant metastatic and locally recurrent breast cancer. Pathologic correlations and clinical significance.

Authors:  Pushpalatha K A Idirisinghe; Aye Aye Thike; Poh Yian Cheok; Gary Man-Kit Tse; Philip Chi-Wai Lui; Stephanie Fook-Chong; Nan Soon Wong; Puay Hoon Tan
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Tissue confirmation of disease recurrence in breast cancer patients: pooled analysis of multi-centre, multi-disciplinary prospective studies.

Authors:  Eitan Amir; Mark Clemons; Colin A Purdie; Naomi Miller; Phil Quinlan; William Geddie; Robert E Coleman; Orit C Freedman; Lee B Jordan; Alastair M Thompson
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 12.111

5.  Discordance between receptor status in primary and metastatic breast cancer: an exploratory study of bone and bone marrow biopsies.

Authors:  E Amir; W S Ooi; C Simmons; H Kahn; M Christakis; S Popovic; M Kalina; A Chesney; G Singh; M Clemons
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2008-09-27       Impact factor: 4.126

6.  Mutational evolution in a lobular breast tumour profiled at single nucleotide resolution.

Authors:  Sohrab P Shah; Ryan D Morin; Jaswinder Khattra; Leah Prentice; Trevor Pugh; Angela Burleigh; Allen Delaney; Karen Gelmon; Ryan Guliany; Janine Senz; Christian Steidl; Robert A Holt; Steven Jones; Mark Sun; Gillian Leung; Richard Moore; Tesa Severson; Greg A Taylor; Andrew E Teschendorff; Kane Tse; Gulisa Turashvili; Richard Varhol; René L Warren; Peter Watson; Yongjun Zhao; Carlos Caldas; David Huntsman; Martin Hirst; Marco A Marra; Samuel Aparicio
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Massively parallel sequencing of phyllodes tumours of the breast reveals actionable mutations, and TERT promoter hotspot mutations and TERT gene amplification as likely drivers of progression.

Authors:  Salvatore Piscuoglio; Charlotte Ky Ng; Melissa Murray; Kathleen A Burke; Marcia Edelweiss; Felipe C Geyer; Gabriel S Macedo; Akiko Inagaki; Anastasios D Papanastasiou; Luciano G Martelotto; Caterina Marchio; Raymond S Lim; Rafael A Ioris; Pooja K Nahar; Ino De Bruijn; Lillian Smyth; Muzaffar Akram; Dara Ross; John H Petrini; Larry Norton; David B Solit; Jose Baselga; Edi Brogi; Marc Ladanyi; Britta Weigelt; Jorge S Reis-Filho
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 7.996

Review 8.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer.

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

9.  Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases?

Authors:  C Simmons; N Miller; W Geddie; D Gianfelice; M Oldfield; G Dranitsaris; M J Clemons
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 32.976

10.  The molecular underpinning of lobular histological growth pattern: a genome-wide transcriptomic analysis of invasive lobular carcinomas and grade- and molecular subtype-matched invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type.

Authors:  Britta Weigelt; Felipe C Geyer; Rachael Natrajan; Maria A Lopez-Garcia; Amar S Ahmad; Kay Savage; Bas Kreike; Jorge S Reis-Filho
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.996

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Hormone Receptor Loss in Breast Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms, Clinical Settings, and Therapeutic Implications.

Authors:  Emma Zattarin; Rita Leporati; Francesca Ligorio; Riccardo Lobefaro; Andrea Vingiani; Giancarlo Pruneri; Claudio Vernieri
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 6.600

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.