Hormone Receptor, HER2/NEU and EGFR Expression in Ovarian Carcinoma - is here a Prognostic Phenotype?

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the effects of hormone receptor, HER2, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression on epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) prognosis and investigate whether or not phenotypic subtypes might exist. Materials and Methods: The medical records of 82 patients who were diagnosed with EOC between 2003 and 2012 and treated by platinum-based chemotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. Expression of EGFR, oestrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and cerbB2 (HER2) receptors were assessed immunohistochemically on paraffin-embedded tissues of these patients. Three phenotypic subtypes were defined according to ER, PR, and HER2 expression and associations of these with EGFR expression, clinicopathologic features, platinum sensitivity, and survival were investigated. Results: When we classified EOC patients into three subtypes, 63.4% had hormone receptor positive (HR(+)) (considering breast cancer subtypes, luminal A), 18.3% had triple negative, and 18.3% had HER2(+) disease. EGFR positivity was observed in 37 patients (45.1%) and was significantly more frequent with advanced disease (p=0.013). However, no significant association with other clinicopathologic features and platinum sensitivity was observed. HER2(+) patients had significantly poorer outcomes than HER2(-) counterparts (triple negative and HR positive patients) (p=0.019). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the strongest risk factor for death was residual disease after primary surgery. Conclusions: Triple negative EOC may not be an aggressive phenotype as in breast cancer. The HER2 positive EOC has more aggressive behaviour compared to triple negative and HR(+) phenotypes. EGFR expression is more frequent in advanced tumours, but is not related with poorer outcome. Additional ovarian cancer molecular subtyping using gene expression analysis may provide more reliable data.

Pattern of triple negative epithelial ovarian cancer in indigenous African women

“…This value contrasts with the results of other studies 17, 25 and compares with the results of previous study 26 . A significant percentage (66.7%) of mucinous carcinoma were negative for ER, PR and HER-2/neu and this was statistically significant (p=0.034).…”

“…A significant percentage (66.7%) of mucinous carcinoma were negative for ER, PR and HER-2/neu and this was statistically significant (p=0.034). This finding contrasts what was found from previous studies where there was no significant association between the TNEOC and histological subtypes 17, 25, 26 . No significant association was also found between the TNEOC and histological grade unlike what was observed by Liu et al .…”

“…26 where TNEOC was significantly correlated with histological grade. There was no significant association between TNEOC and age and FIGO stage compared to the findings of other studies 17, 25, 26 .…”

Tumor-linked HER2 expression: association with obesity and lipid-related microenvironment

“…EGFR signaling can involve a number of intracellular molecules such as extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), cyclin D1 and β-catenin [51]. The presence of EGFR is detected in a wide range of cancer types (Table 3 [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]). Normally, the EGFR gene is located on chromosome 7.…”

EGFR as a prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target in ovarian cancer: evaluation of patient cohort and literature review

“…While common histology scoring systems have been applied by some research groups, accounting for intensity and positivity, the specific details of these approaches have varied, which could substantially impact the overall analysis. Similar to our approach, some studies dichotomized staining into two groups, below and above 10% positivity [16, 19, 21, 25, 26], while others chose the more classic 2+ and 3+ score calculated from intensity and positivity [15, 18, 27-30] or have defined >1% stained cells as positive [20, 31, 32]. Ultimately, all of these thresholds are somewhat arbitrary as there has been no defined biological rationale proposed to justify which staining levels would indicate a significantly different tumor phenotype.…”