AIM: To test whether immunoradiometric or immunohistochemical detection of lysosomal protease cathepsin D in breast cancer is more predictive of outcome. METHODS: Tumour tissues from 270 primary breast cancer patients were evaluated for the expression of cathepsin D using immunohistochemistry (IH; paraffin embedded tissues) and an immunoradiometric assay (IRMA; cytosol from frozen tissues). Immunohistochemical scores were based on immunoreaction in tumour cells and tumour associated macrophages. RESULTS: IRMA values (cut off 40 fmol/mg cell protein) correlated significantly with IH values. Recorded incidences of positive immunoreaction in tumour cells using two different cut off values were 52% and 35%, respectively. Macrophages stained positive in 31% of tissues. Combined evaluation of tumour cells and macrophages resulted in positivity rates of 59% and 48%, respectively. Node status was the only variable found to correlate with cathepsin D expression. IH results correlated significantly with clinical outcome (median observation time 68 months) in node negative patients (n = 120) but not in node positive patients (n = 145). Cathepsin D positivity as measured by IRMA was not related to clinical outcome in either group. On multivariate analysis in the node negative group, IH detection of cathepsin D appeared to be the only independent factor indicating prognosis. For node positive patients, tumour grade, size, and receptor status were of prognostic relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the simple methodology and the minimal amount of tissue used for analysis, immunohistochemistry was preferred to immunoradiometry for cathepsin D measurement; it also provided more predictive data with respect to prognosis.
AIM: To test whether immunoradiometric or immunohistochemical detection of lysosomal protease cathepsin D in breast cancer is more predictive of outcome. METHODS:Tumour tissues from 270 primary breast cancerpatients were evaluated for the expression of cathepsin D using immunohistochemistry (IH; paraffin embedded tissues) and an immunoradiometric assay (IRMA; cytosol from frozen tissues). Immunohistochemical scores were based on immunoreaction in tumour cells and tumour associated macrophages. RESULTS: IRMA values (cut off 40 fmol/mg cell protein) correlated significantly with IH values. Recorded incidences of positive immunoreaction in tumour cells using two different cut off values were 52% and 35%, respectively. Macrophages stained positive in 31% of tissues. Combined evaluation of tumour cells and macrophages resulted in positivity rates of 59% and 48%, respectively. Node status was the only variable found to correlate with cathepsin D expression. IH results correlated significantly with clinical outcome (median observation time 68 months) in node negative patients (n = 120) but not in node positive patients (n = 145). Cathepsin D positivity as measured by IRMA was not related to clinical outcome in either group. On multivariate analysis in the node negative group, IH detection of cathepsin D appeared to be the only independent factor indicating prognosis. For node positive patients, tumour grade, size, and receptor status were of prognostic relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the simple methodology and the minimal amount of tissue used for analysis, immunohistochemistry was preferred to immunoradiometry for cathepsin D measurement; it also provided more predictive data with respect to prognosis.
Authors: H Rogier; G Freiss; M G Besse; G Cavalié-Barthez; M Garcia; B Pau; H Rochefort; F Paolucci Journal: Clin Chem Date: 1989-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: M Garcia; M J Lacombe; H Duplay; V Cavailles; D Derocq; J C Delarue; B Krebs; G Contesso; H Sancho-Garnier; G Richer Journal: J Steroid Biochem Date: 1987 Impact factor: 4.292
Authors: M Pfisterer; F Burkart; G Jockers; B Meyer; S Regenass; D Burckhardt; H E Schmitt; J Müller-Brand; K Skarvan; P Stulz Journal: Lancet Date: 1989-07-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J A Henry; A L McCarthy; B Angus; B R Westley; F E May; S Nicholson; J Cairns; A L Harris; C H Horne Journal: Cancer Date: 1990-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S M Thorpe; H Rochefort; M Garcia; G Freiss; I J Christensen; S Khalaf; F Paolucci; B Pau; B B Rasmussen; C Rose Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1989-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: F Capony; M Morisset; A J Barrett; J P Capony; P Broquet; F Vignon; M Chambon; P Louisot; H Rochefort Journal: J Cell Biol Date: 1987-02 Impact factor: 10.539