Comparison of estrogen receptor determinations by a biochemical ligand- binding assay and immunohistochemical staining with monoclonal antibody ER1D5 in females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma entered on two prospective clinical trials

Steven Robert Alberts, James N. Ingle, Patrick R. Roche, Stephen S. Cha, Lester E. Wold, Gist H. Farr, James E. Krook, H. Sam Wieand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND. The measurement of estrogen receptors (ER) in breast cancer specimens has traditionally been assessed with a dextran-coated charcoal assay (DCCA). More recently the immunohistochemical staining (IHC) method has gained increasing popularity because of its ability to use fixed tissue, assess needle biopsies, and reduce cost. Controversy exists over the accuracy of IHC compared with that of DCCA in determining ER. We compared these two techniques using tumor tissue obtained from a large group of females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma with long term follow-up. METHODS. Breast carcinoma tissue was obtained from a large group of females with node positive breast carcinoma participating in two adjuvant chemotherapy trials. ER was determined by the traditional DCCA method and by IHC using the ER1D5 antibody. Disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by each of these methods. RESULTS. ER status was determined by DCCA and IHC in tumor tissue obtained from 316 females. A concordance of 79% was observed for the determination of ER-positive tumors. Of the discordant results, the majority of DCCA-negative, IHC positive tumors could be explained by a low level of DCCA positivity (<10 fmol) or IHC staining of nonmalignant cells. A much higher rate of discordant results was observed in premenopausal females. Of the DCCA-negative, IHC-positive patients 97% were premenopausal and of the DCCA-positive, IHC-negative patients 79% were premenopausal ER by DCC appears to perform better than ER by IHC as a prognostic factor in terms of DFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS. When compared with DCCA, IHC with monoclonal antibody ER1D5 appears to be a reasonable substitute for the determination of ER. Although DCCA appeared to perform better as a determinant of prognosis, ER detection is used primarily for deciding on hormonal therapy. Review of discordant cases indicates IHC may more accurately reflect the ER status of malignant cells in some patients. Attention must be paid to quality control considerations in performance of IHC staining.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)764-772
Number of pages9
JournalCancer
Volume78
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 15 1996

Fingerprint

Charcoal
Estrogen Receptors
Dextrans
Lymph Nodes
Monoclonal Antibodies
Clinical Trials
Staining and Labeling
Breast Neoplasms
Ligands
Negative Staining
Disease-Free Survival
Neoplasms
Survival
Needle Biopsy
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Quality Control
Costs and Cost Analysis
Antibodies

Keywords

  • breast neoplasms
  • estrogen receptors
  • immunohistochemistry
  • node positive

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Comparison of estrogen receptor determinations by a biochemical ligand- binding assay and immunohistochemical staining with monoclonal antibody ER1D5 in females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma entered on two prospective clinical trials. / Alberts, Steven Robert; Ingle, James N.; Roche, Patrick R.; Cha, Stephen S.; Wold, Lester E.; Farr, Gist H.; Krook, James E.; Wieand, H. Sam.

In: Cancer, Vol. 78, No. 4, 15.08.1996, p. 764-772.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{55672f6365494608991cd932445c1963,
title = "Comparison of estrogen receptor determinations by a biochemical ligand- binding assay and immunohistochemical staining with monoclonal antibody ER1D5 in females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma entered on two prospective clinical trials",
abstract = "BACKGROUND. The measurement of estrogen receptors (ER) in breast cancer specimens has traditionally been assessed with a dextran-coated charcoal assay (DCCA). More recently the immunohistochemical staining (IHC) method has gained increasing popularity because of its ability to use fixed tissue, assess needle biopsies, and reduce cost. Controversy exists over the accuracy of IHC compared with that of DCCA in determining ER. We compared these two techniques using tumor tissue obtained from a large group of females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma with long term follow-up. METHODS. Breast carcinoma tissue was obtained from a large group of females with node positive breast carcinoma participating in two adjuvant chemotherapy trials. ER was determined by the traditional DCCA method and by IHC using the ER1D5 antibody. Disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by each of these methods. RESULTS. ER status was determined by DCCA and IHC in tumor tissue obtained from 316 females. A concordance of 79{\%} was observed for the determination of ER-positive tumors. Of the discordant results, the majority of DCCA-negative, IHC positive tumors could be explained by a low level of DCCA positivity (<10 fmol) or IHC staining of nonmalignant cells. A much higher rate of discordant results was observed in premenopausal females. Of the DCCA-negative, IHC-positive patients 97{\%} were premenopausal and of the DCCA-positive, IHC-negative patients 79{\%} were premenopausal ER by DCC appears to perform better than ER by IHC as a prognostic factor in terms of DFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS. When compared with DCCA, IHC with monoclonal antibody ER1D5 appears to be a reasonable substitute for the determination of ER. Although DCCA appeared to perform better as a determinant of prognosis, ER detection is used primarily for deciding on hormonal therapy. Review of discordant cases indicates IHC may more accurately reflect the ER status of malignant cells in some patients. Attention must be paid to quality control considerations in performance of IHC staining.",
keywords = "breast neoplasms, estrogen receptors, immunohistochemistry, node positive",
author = "Alberts, {Steven Robert} and Ingle, {James N.} and Roche, {Patrick R.} and Cha, {Stephen S.} and Wold, {Lester E.} and Farr, {Gist H.} and Krook, {James E.} and Wieand, {H. Sam}",
year = "1996",
month = "8",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960815)78:4<764::AID-CNCR12>3.0.CO;2-T",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "78",
pages = "764--772",
journal = "Cancer",
issn = "0008-543X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of estrogen receptor determinations by a biochemical ligand- binding assay and immunohistochemical staining with monoclonal antibody ER1D5 in females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma entered on two prospective clinical trials

AU - Alberts, Steven Robert

AU - Ingle, James N.

AU - Roche, Patrick R.

AU - Cha, Stephen S.

AU - Wold, Lester E.

AU - Farr, Gist H.

AU - Krook, James E.

AU - Wieand, H. Sam

PY - 1996/8/15

Y1 - 1996/8/15

N2 - BACKGROUND. The measurement of estrogen receptors (ER) in breast cancer specimens has traditionally been assessed with a dextran-coated charcoal assay (DCCA). More recently the immunohistochemical staining (IHC) method has gained increasing popularity because of its ability to use fixed tissue, assess needle biopsies, and reduce cost. Controversy exists over the accuracy of IHC compared with that of DCCA in determining ER. We compared these two techniques using tumor tissue obtained from a large group of females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma with long term follow-up. METHODS. Breast carcinoma tissue was obtained from a large group of females with node positive breast carcinoma participating in two adjuvant chemotherapy trials. ER was determined by the traditional DCCA method and by IHC using the ER1D5 antibody. Disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by each of these methods. RESULTS. ER status was determined by DCCA and IHC in tumor tissue obtained from 316 females. A concordance of 79% was observed for the determination of ER-positive tumors. Of the discordant results, the majority of DCCA-negative, IHC positive tumors could be explained by a low level of DCCA positivity (<10 fmol) or IHC staining of nonmalignant cells. A much higher rate of discordant results was observed in premenopausal females. Of the DCCA-negative, IHC-positive patients 97% were premenopausal and of the DCCA-positive, IHC-negative patients 79% were premenopausal ER by DCC appears to perform better than ER by IHC as a prognostic factor in terms of DFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS. When compared with DCCA, IHC with monoclonal antibody ER1D5 appears to be a reasonable substitute for the determination of ER. Although DCCA appeared to perform better as a determinant of prognosis, ER detection is used primarily for deciding on hormonal therapy. Review of discordant cases indicates IHC may more accurately reflect the ER status of malignant cells in some patients. Attention must be paid to quality control considerations in performance of IHC staining.

AB - BACKGROUND. The measurement of estrogen receptors (ER) in breast cancer specimens has traditionally been assessed with a dextran-coated charcoal assay (DCCA). More recently the immunohistochemical staining (IHC) method has gained increasing popularity because of its ability to use fixed tissue, assess needle biopsies, and reduce cost. Controversy exists over the accuracy of IHC compared with that of DCCA in determining ER. We compared these two techniques using tumor tissue obtained from a large group of females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma with long term follow-up. METHODS. Breast carcinoma tissue was obtained from a large group of females with node positive breast carcinoma participating in two adjuvant chemotherapy trials. ER was determined by the traditional DCCA method and by IHC using the ER1D5 antibody. Disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by each of these methods. RESULTS. ER status was determined by DCCA and IHC in tumor tissue obtained from 316 females. A concordance of 79% was observed for the determination of ER-positive tumors. Of the discordant results, the majority of DCCA-negative, IHC positive tumors could be explained by a low level of DCCA positivity (<10 fmol) or IHC staining of nonmalignant cells. A much higher rate of discordant results was observed in premenopausal females. Of the DCCA-negative, IHC-positive patients 97% were premenopausal and of the DCCA-positive, IHC-negative patients 79% were premenopausal ER by DCC appears to perform better than ER by IHC as a prognostic factor in terms of DFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS. When compared with DCCA, IHC with monoclonal antibody ER1D5 appears to be a reasonable substitute for the determination of ER. Although DCCA appeared to perform better as a determinant of prognosis, ER detection is used primarily for deciding on hormonal therapy. Review of discordant cases indicates IHC may more accurately reflect the ER status of malignant cells in some patients. Attention must be paid to quality control considerations in performance of IHC staining.

KW - breast neoplasms

KW - estrogen receptors

KW - immunohistochemistry

KW - node positive

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029737029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029737029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960815)78:4<764::AID-CNCR12>3.0.CO;2-T

DO - 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960815)78:4<764::AID-CNCR12>3.0.CO;2-T

M3 - Article

C2 - 8756370

AN - SCOPUS:0029737029

VL - 78

SP - 764

EP - 772

JO - Cancer

JF - Cancer

SN - 0008-543X

IS - 4

ER -