Assessment of Tissue Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Levels: A Survey of Current Practice, Techniques, and Quantitation Methods - PubMed (original) (raw)
Assessment of Tissue Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Levels: A Survey of Current Practice, Techniques, and Quantitation Methods
Lester J. Layfield et al. Breast J. 2000 May.
Abstract
The assessment of steroid hormone receptors in resected breast carcinoma tissue is currently the standard of practice. The traditional method for assessment of receptor status is the ligand binding assay. More recently, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has become a popular method for such testing. Despite the widespread use of IHC and the availability of many antibodies, standardization of quantitative IHC for assessment of estrogen and progesterone receptors has not been achieved. While the College of American Pathologists (CAP) offers a Quality Assurance (QA) program for IHC quantitation of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR), no universal standard is currently recognized in assessment of ER and PgR by IHC. We surveyed 300 laboratories within the United States for their current practices regarding the assessment of ER and PgR status in breast cancer tissue specimens. Eighty usable responses were received. Forty-nine (61%) laboratories performed the assay in-house, while the remainder sent the material out for assay. All responding laboratories performing their steroid receptor analysis in-house used the IHC technique. Forty-three (80%) laboratories answering the question on material accepted for analysis performed the assay only on paraffin-embedded material, three (6%) used either paraffin block or frozen material, and two (4%) used only frozen material. Eighty-eight percent of laboratories performing steroid receptor analysis in-house used a manual quantitation technique. Four (8%) used computer-assisted image analysis, and a single laboratory used laser scanning cytometry. Eight different antibodies were used among the 44 laboratories documenting the antibody supplier, and for any given commercially prepared antibody a wide variety of dilutions were used, with the exception of the standard solution used with the Ventana antibody. Of the laboratories using manual estimation techniques, 61% simply estimated the percentage of positive cells, 29% evaluated both the intensity of staining and percentage of nuclei staining, 6% used formal H-score analysis, 2% evaluated only intensity of nuclear staining, and 2% mainly counted the percentage of nuclei staining for ER but used a formal H score in the assessment of PgR. Cutoff points for the separation of positive and negative results varied widely, with some laboratories assessing any demonstrable positivity as a positive result, while others required as many as 19% of the nuclei to stain before a specimen was declared positive. Standardization techniques differed considerably among laboratories. Eighty-six percent used the CAP program for QA. While all laboratories utilized some form of intralaboratory control for assessment of ER and PgR, the nature of that control varied from laboratory to laboratory. Our survey indicates that a majority of laboratories perform their steroid hormone receptor analysis in-house using IHC. There is considerable variability in the antibodies utilized, the dilutions applied, and the quantitation method and level of expression used to dichotomize specimens into positive and negative groups. Finally, no universal control for interlaboratory standardization appears to exist.
Similar articles
- Quality assurance for detection of estrogen and progesterone receptors by immunohistochemistry in Austrian pathology laboratories.
Regitnig P, Reiner A, Dinges HP, Höfler G, Müller-Holzner E, Lax SF, Obrist P, Rudas M, Quehenberger F. Regitnig P, et al. Virchows Arch. 2002 Oct;441(4):328-34. doi: 10.1007/s00428-002-0646-5. Epub 2002 Sep 17. Virchows Arch. 2002. PMID: 12404057 - Comparison of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Antibody Reagents Using Proficiency Testing Data.
Troxell ML, Long T, Hornick JL, Ambaye AB, Jensen KC. Troxell ML, et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017 Oct;141(10):1402-1412. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0497-OA. Epub 2017 Jul 17. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017. PMID: 28714765 - NCCN Task Force Report: Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry.
Allred DC, Carlson RW, Berry DA, Burstein HJ, Edge SB, Goldstein LJ, Gown A, Hammond ME, Iglehart JD, Moench S, Pierce LJ, Ravdin P, Schnitt SJ, Wolff AC. Allred DC, et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009 Sep;7 Suppl 6:S1-S21; quiz S22-3. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2009.0079. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009. PMID: 19755043 Review. - Significance of immunohistochemical assessment of steroid hormone receptor status for breast cancer patients.
Kurosumi M. Kurosumi M. Breast Cancer. 2003;10(2):97-104. doi: 10.1007/BF02967633. Breast Cancer. 2003. PMID: 12736561 Review.
Cited by
- Impact of estrogen receptor expression level on response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and prognosis in HER2-negative breast cancers.
Chen HL, Huang FB, Chen Q, Deng YC. Chen HL, et al. BMC Cancer. 2023 Sep 8;23(1):841. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11368-2. BMC Cancer. 2023. PMID: 37684569 Free PMC article. - Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging-derived apparent diffusion coefficient and its association with histological prognostic factors in breast cancer.
Ren C, Zou Y, Zhang X, Li K. Ren C, et al. Oncol Lett. 2019 Sep;18(3):3295-3303. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.10651. Epub 2019 Jul 22. Oncol Lett. 2019. PMID: 31452808 Free PMC article. - Concordance between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in breast cancer.
Asogan AB, Hong GS, Arni Prabhakaran SK. Asogan AB, et al. Singapore Med J. 2017 Mar;58(3):145-149. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2016062. Epub 2016 Mar 31. Singapore Med J. 2017. PMID: 27029805 Free PMC article. - Quantification of Estrogen Receptor-Alpha Expression in Human Breast Carcinomas With a Miniaturized, Low-Cost Digital Microscope: A Comparison with a High-End Whole Slide-Scanner.
Holmström O, Linder N, Lundin M, Moilanen H, Suutala A, Turkki R, Joensuu H, Isola J, Diwan V, Lundin J. Holmström O, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Dec 14;10(12):e0144688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144688. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26659386 Free PMC article.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous