Estrogen receptor analyses in breast cancer: Comparison of monoclonal immunohistochemical and biochemical methods

Søndergaard, Gorm; Pedersen, Katja Venborg; Paulsen, Stein

doi:10.1016/0277-5379(89)90100-4

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have shown good correlation between EIA and DCC (9,12,14,22) and ICA and DCC (2, 11,17,18,20). Recent data have also shown that there is a good correlation between results obtained with EIA and ICA for ER evaluation ( 5 , 6 ) and, more recently, for ER and PR as well (3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer: Comparison between enzyme immunoassay and computer-assisted image analysis of immunocytochemical assay

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer: Comparison between enzyme immunoassay and computer-assisted image analysis of immunocytochemical assay

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Many studies have compared the results of immunohistochemically determined steroid receptor values with those obtained by ligand binding analysis. In general, the correlation has been good (6–11). Despite agreement of results derived from individual antibodies used in immunohistochemistry (IHC) determinations and the ligand binding technique, significant variability has been documented in the results obtained by IHC using different commercially available antibodies (12,13).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Tissue Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Levels: A Survey of Current Practice, Techniques, and Quantitation Methods

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 express...

show abstract

“…The significance of this factor is unknown but it is probably the number of unoccupied receptors which determines the effect of hormonal treatment. Many studies have found a high degree of qualitative correlation between the results obtained by the biochemical assay and those of immunocytochemical assays (21). The quantitative correlation between immunocytochemical and biochemical analysis is more controversial (2 l).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estrogen and progesterone receptors in epithelial ovarian tumours

Glavind¹,

Grove²

1990

APMIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and malignant epithelial ovarian tumours differ in respect of receptor status/content. This study was undertaken to determine the influence of histological type of different epithelial ovarian cancers on receptor status. Furthermore, we analyzed differences in receptor status in cases with more than one location of the ovarian tumour in the same patient and differences in receptor content in benign, borderline and malignant ovarian tumours. MATERIALS AND METHODSBetween 01.05.1986 and 01.03.1989 43 patients with histologically proven primary epithelial ovarian tumours entered this study. The median age was 59 years (range 29-85).Tumour specimens were obtained at first laparotomy. The specimens were received immediately from the theatre and the tumour tissue was dissected free of 916

show abstract

Estrogen receptor analyses in breast cancer: Comparison of monoclonal immunohistochemical and biochemical methods

Cited by 14 publications

References 18 publications

Estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer: Comparison between enzyme immunoassay and computer-assisted image analysis of immunocytochemical assay

Estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer: Comparison between enzyme immunoassay and computer-assisted image analysis of immunocytochemical assay

Assessment of Tissue Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Levels: A Survey of Current Practice, Techniques, and Quantitation Methods

Estrogen and progesterone receptors in epithelial ovarian tumours

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About