Automated immunohistochemical assessment ability to evaluate estrogen and progesterone receptor status compared with quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in breast carcinoma patients

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to investigate the capability of an automated immunohistochemical (IHC) evaluation of hormonal receptor status in breast cancer patients compared to a well-validated quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qP-CR) method. Methods: This study included 93 invasive breast carcinoma cases that had both standard IHC assay and Oncotype Dx assay results. The same paraffin blocks on which Oncotype Dx assay had been performed were selected. Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) receptor status were evaluated through IHC stains using SP1 monoclonal antibody for ER, and 1E2 monoclonal antibody for PR. All ER and PR immunostained slides were scanned, and invasive tumor areas were marked. Using the Quant-Center image analyzer provided by 3DHISTECH, IHC staining of hormone receptors was measured and converted to histochemical scores (H scores). Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between Oncotype Dx hormone receptor scores and H scores, and between Oncotype Dx scores and Allred scores. Results: H scores measured by an automated imaging system showed high concordance with RT-qPCR scores. ER concordance was 98.9% (92/93), and PR concordance was 91.4% (85/93). The correlation magnitude between automated H scores and RT-qPCR scores was high and comparable to those of Allred scores (for ER, 0.51 vs. 0.37 [p = .121], for PR, 0.70 vs. 0.72 [p = .39]). Conclusions: Automated H scores showed a high concordance with quantitative mRNA expression levels measured by RT-qPCR.

Image analysis of immunohistochemistry-based biomarkers in breast cancer

“…Optimisation greatly increased the concordance and the analysis of all cases indicated substantial concordance. The obtained distributions are in-line with published data (Jeon, Kim and Kim 2021). For ER, the observed bimodal distribution of the IHC scoring results is typical (Collins, Botero and Schnitt 2005).…”

“…For the hormone receptors, studies have been published that show excellent concordance between manual scoring and DIA as well as between DIA and molecular quantitation of receptor expression (Jeon, Kim and Kim 2021). Such studies highlight not only the technical maturity of DIA for hormone receptors but also its biological significance.…”

“…Both have in vitro diagnostics certifications for specific applications such as automated Ki-67 quantification. They feature a working space in which a collection of software applications can be used to perform specific tasks such as the quantification of stained nuclei in Ki-67 and HR, membrane quantification in Her2 and PD-L1 as well as histomorphological analyses (Hartage et al 2020;Jeon, Kim and Kim 2021).…”

Dose-Dependent Relationship between Protection of Thioacetamide-Induced Acute Liver Injury and Hyperammonemia and Concentration of Lactobacillus salivarius Li01 in Mice

“…In addition, immunohistochemistry analysis with MPO antibody (AbCam, Cambridge, UK) was used to observe the aggregation of neutrophils in liver tissues, and the steps included dewaxing, repairing, sealing, adding the first and second antibodies, DAB staining, hematoxylin restaining, and neutral gum sealing. A semiquantitative scoring for MPO immunohistochemistry staining was performed by QuantCenter (version 2.2.1.23379, 3D Histech, Budapest, Hungary), and the method was based on previous studies ( 52 ). The H-score is calculated by adding up all the proportion of inflammatory cells multiplied by the staining reactivity.…”

Marker assessments inER‐positive breast cancers: old markers, new applications?

“…The ER status, biomarker profile (markers other than ER), 44 and histological grading and typing 22,23 of breast cancers are highly intercorrelated, with some showing positive and others showing negative correlation (Figure 2). 47–49 These other commonly assessed markers can be grouped into the following categories: routine breast cancer reporting: progesterone receptor (PR), Ki67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor‐2 (HER2) breast cancer diagnosis: androgen receptor (AR), GATA3, gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 (GCDFP‐15), mammaglobin (MGB), SOX10, and TRPS1, and target therapy selection: programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1) and mismatch repair protein (MMR). …”