Is oestrogen receptor-negative/progesterone receptor-positive (ER-/PR+) a real pathological entity?
borderline oestrogen-receptor
breast cancer
multigene assay
progesterone-receptor-positive
recurrence score
Journal
Ecancermedicalscience
ISSN: 1754-6605
Titre abrégé: Ecancermedicalscience
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101392236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
01
07
2021
entrez:
27
9
2021
pubmed:
28
9
2021
medline:
28
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The existence of oestrogen receptor-negative (ER-)/progesterone receptor-positive (PR+) breast cancer continues to be an area of controversy amongst oncologists and pathologists. To re-evaluate breast cancers originally classified as ER-/PR+ via Oncotype DX® assay and compare molecular phenotype with Recurrence Score® (RS) result, clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes were retrospectively obtained from electronic health records between January 1998 and June 2005. Archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour specimens were tested for the expression of ER, PR and human-epidermal-growth-factor-2. The number of positive ER-/PR+ samples confirmed by transcriptional analysis was the primary outcome of interest with event-free and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Biopsies from 26 patients underwent Oncotype DX testing and analysis. Approximately 60% were middle-aged (40-50 years old) women, and 84.6% had invasive ductal carcinoma. Based on the Oncotype DX assay, approximately 65% ( Our findings suggest the ER-/PR+ subtype is not a reproducible entity and emphasises the value of retesting this subtype via molecular methods for appropriate treatment selection and patient outcomes. Multigene assay analysis may serve as a second-line or confirming tool for clinical determination of ER/PR phenotype in breast cancer patients for targeted therapies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The existence of oestrogen receptor-negative (ER-)/progesterone receptor-positive (PR+) breast cancer continues to be an area of controversy amongst oncologists and pathologists.
METHODS
METHODS
To re-evaluate breast cancers originally classified as ER-/PR+ via Oncotype DX® assay and compare molecular phenotype with Recurrence Score® (RS) result, clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes were retrospectively obtained from electronic health records between January 1998 and June 2005. Archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour specimens were tested for the expression of ER, PR and human-epidermal-growth-factor-2. The number of positive ER-/PR+ samples confirmed by transcriptional analysis was the primary outcome of interest with event-free and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Biopsies from 26 patients underwent Oncotype DX testing and analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Approximately 60% were middle-aged (40-50 years old) women, and 84.6% had invasive ductal carcinoma. Based on the Oncotype DX assay, approximately 65% (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest the ER-/PR+ subtype is not a reproducible entity and emphasises the value of retesting this subtype via molecular methods for appropriate treatment selection and patient outcomes. Multigene assay analysis may serve as a second-line or confirming tool for clinical determination of ER/PR phenotype in breast cancer patients for targeted therapies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34567263
doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2021.1278
pii: can-15-1278
pmc: PMC8426004
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1278Informations de copyright
© the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no personal or financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
J Clin Pathol. 2009 Jan;62(1):95-6
pubmed: 19103868
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Feb;17(2):118-126
pubmed: 30787125
Hum Pathol. 2015 Nov;46(11):1776-84
pubmed: 26363528
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 10;10(7):e0132449
pubmed: 26161666
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 1;28(10):1677-83
pubmed: 20065188
Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Jun;67:78-87
pubmed: 29772460
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Jan;155(1):85-97
pubmed: 26650824
Arch Iran Med. 2012 Jun;15(6):366-9
pubmed: 22642247
Cancer Res. 1991 Jan 1;51(1):105-9
pubmed: 1988075
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2350-8
pubmed: 27217450
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2817-26
pubmed: 15591335
Am J Clin Pathol. 2003 Jul;120(1):86-92
pubmed: 12866377
Am J Clin Pathol. 2010 Nov;134(5):813-9
pubmed: 20959666
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 20;25(30):4772-8
pubmed: 17876012
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 20;38(12):1346-1366
pubmed: 31928404
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Aug 10;24(23):3726-34
pubmed: 16720680
Oncologist. 2008 Nov;13(11):1134-6
pubmed: 18987048
Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(4):R68
pubmed: 23971947
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 1;30(7):729-34
pubmed: 22291085
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 10;28(11):1829-34
pubmed: 20212256
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 12;379(2):111-121
pubmed: 29860917
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010 Jul;134(7):e48-72
pubmed: 20586616
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2473-81
pubmed: 18487567
Pathol Oncol Res. 2018 Oct;24(4):881-884
pubmed: 28891017
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 10;26(2):335-6; author reply 336-8
pubmed: 18182677
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 Jun;103(2):197-208
pubmed: 17039265
JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):288-300
pubmed: 30667505
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Jan;143(2):403-9
pubmed: 24337596
J Clin Pathol. 1994 Oct;47(10):900-5
pubmed: 7962603
Pathol Oncol Res. 2006;12(4):223-7
pubmed: 17189985
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 10;26(5):721-8
pubmed: 18258979
Clin Cancer Res. 2005 May 1;11(9):3315-9
pubmed: 15867229
Clin Med Res. 2009 Jun;7(1-2):4-13
pubmed: 19574486
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jan 3;3(1):e1918160
pubmed: 31899528
Clin Transl Oncol. 2020 Apr;22(4):474-485
pubmed: 31222450
J Clin Pathol. 2017 Apr;70(4):320-326
pubmed: 27612503