Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor in breast carcinoma.

Lewis, Sarah; Locker, A. P.; Todd, John H.; Bell, Jane M.; Nicholson, Robert Ian; Elston, C. W.; Blamey, R.W.; Ellis, Ian O.

doi:10.1136/jcp.43.5.385

Cited by 105 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Again, the presence of epidermal growth factor receptor in human breast cancer is associated with poor prognosis (Sainsbury et al, 1985;Sainsbury et al, 1987) although not with tumour size or lymph node status (Sainsbury et al, 1987;Sainsbury et al, 1988;Toi et al, 1990); some workers find an association with histological grade (Toi et al, 1990) whereas others do not (Lewis et al, 1990). The proportion of cases overall scored positive for EGFR was 30% (40/132) and was similar to that assessed as 'positive' by Sainsbury et al.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…The proportion of cases overall scored positive for EGFR was 30% (40/132) and was similar to that assessed as 'positive' by Sainsbury et al. (1987) using radioligand binding assays, but somewhat higher than the proportion scored positive by Lewis et al (1990) (14%) who also used an immunohistochemical method. The differences in tumour size, lymph node status and grade that we find between the screened and 'clinical' groups are not reflected in the EGFR status that is essentially similar in the two groups, but our results do demonstrate an association between expression of EGFR and c-erbB-2 protein.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Three antigens, currently of interest as prognostic indicators were chosen. Amplification of c-erbB-2 is regarded as a reliable prognostic marker in breast cancer (Barnes, 1989), epidermial growth factor receptor (EGFR) correlates strongly with a short disease free interval (Lewis et al, 1990) and positive immunostaining for the oestrogen regulated protein cathepsin D is associated with prognostic advantage ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Immunohistochemical and other features of breast carcinomas presenting clinically compared with those detected by cancer screening

Cowan

Angus²,

Henry³

et al. 1991

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether or not breast cancer screening results in a reduction in mortality from the disease, it is clear from several studies that screening yields tumours that are smaller, more likely to be in situ and clinically less advanced (Linell et al., 1980;Gibbs, 1985;Anderson et al., 1986;Roberts et al., 1990 al., 1982], Amersham) diluted 1/40 in 1/5 normal swine serum. The sections were then incubated for 30min with biotinylated sheep-anti-mouse serum (Amersham) and streptavidinbiotin peroxidase complex for 30min, being washed with TBS between stages. The chromagen and counterstain were as for the c-erbB-2 method above. A section of human placenta was used as a control.Tumours were scored on a basis of intensity and distribution of staining as previously described (Horne, 1987). Both membrane and cytoplasmic staining was considered. Carcinomas showing definite labelling of greater than 25% of tumour cells were regarded as 'positive'. Cathepsin D Paraffin sections were cut at 4 ts, dewaxed, rehydrated and treated with hydrogen peroxide in methanol as for c-erbB-2 above. They were next treated with 0.1% trypsin at 37°C for 10 min and washed in water. After rinsing in TBS and incubation with normal 1/5 swine serum for 10 min as above, they were incubated with the primary antiserum (anti-cathepsin D [Reid et al., 1986]) diluted 1:400 for 30 min at RT. After two changes of TBS they were incubated with biotinylated donkey-anti-rabbit serum (Amersham) and streptavidin-biotin peroxidase complex for 30 min, being washed with TBS between stages. The chromagen and counterstain were as for the c-erbB-2 method above.Tumours were scored for intensity of staining as previously described ) and placed in three grades, 0, no cell staining; 1, moderate staining; 2, strong staining.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immunohistochemical and other features of breast carcinomas presenting clinically compared with those detected by cancer screening

Cowan

Angus²,

Henry³

et al. 1991

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13,22,23 Multiple investigators have also found HER-1 overexpression to represent a negative prognosticator for patients with breast carcinoma. 24,25 However, to our knowledge, few groups to date have evaluated the expression of the entire T1GFR family in human breast carcinoma. Utilizing immunohistochemistry, Witton et al 26 evaluated T1GFR family expression in tissue specimens from a cohort of 220 patients with breast carcinoma treated over a 9-year period in Glasgow, Scotland.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexpression of the type 1 growth factor receptor family members HER‐1, HER‐2, and HER‐3 has a synergistic negative prognostic effect on breast carcinoma survival

Wiseman¹,

Makretsov²,

Nielsen³

et al. 2005

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDThe clinical significance of coexpression of type 1 growth factor receptor (T1GFR) family members remains largely unknown. The objective of the current study was to determine the frequency and the possible prognostic effect of coexpression of HER‐1, HER‐2, HER‐3, and HER‐4 by breast carcinoma.METHODSTissue microarrays were constructed using clinically annotated formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tumor samples from 242 patients with invasive breast carcinomas with a median 15‐year follow‐up. The levels of TIGFR family members (HER‐1–HER‐4) were measured by immunohistochemistry. K‐means clustering algorithm, as well as univariate (Kaplan–Meier, log‐rank test) and multivariate (Cox regression) survival analyses were applied to the data set.RESULTSUsing univariate analysis, expression of HER‐1, HER‐2, and HER‐3, but not HER‐4, was significantly associated with decreased patient disease‐specific survival (P < 0.05). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that coexpression of ≥ 2 of HER‐1, HER‐2, and HER‐3 in any combination was associated with reduced patient disease‐specific survival compared with single marker expression or no expression (35% vs. 65% vs. 78% 10‐year survival rates, P = 0.001). Using multivariate analysis, expression of ≥ 2 of HER‐1, HER‐2, and HER‐3 was independent of lymph node status and tumor size.CONCLUSIONSIn a cohort of patients with breast carcinoma, the authors observed T1GFR family member coexpression (HER‐1, HER‐2, and HER‐3) to have a negative synergistic effect on patient outcome, independent of tumor size or lymph node status. Thus, coexpression of T1GFR family members identified a subset of patients with a poor disease prognosis who may potentially benefit from therapy simultaneously targeting several T1GFR family members. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

“…Many studies in recent years have shown an inverse relationship between ER and EGFR in female human breast cancer (Sainsbury et al, 1985;Toi et al, 1989;Lewis et al, 1990). EGFR expression in human breast cancer is associated with a number of features of poor prognosis, including high tumour grade (Hainsworth et al, 1991), lymphatic invasion (Toi et al, 1989(Toi et al, , 1990, lymph node involvement (Hainsworth et al, 1991) and markers of increased cellular proliferation such as Ki-67 (Toi et al, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual immunocytochemical analysis of oestrogen and epidermal growth factor receptors in human breast cancer

Sharma

Horgan²,

Douglas-Jones³

et al. 1994

Br J Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor in breast carcinoma.

Cited by 105 publications

References 12 publications

Immunohistochemical and other features of breast carcinomas presenting clinically compared with those detected by cancer screening

Immunohistochemical and other features of breast carcinomas presenting clinically compared with those detected by cancer screening

Coexpression of the type 1 growth factor receptor family members HER‐1, HER‐2, and HER‐3 has a synergistic negative prognostic effect on breast carcinoma survival

Dual immunocytochemical analysis of oestrogen and epidermal growth factor receptors in human breast cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About