Use of Monoclonal Antiestrogen Receptor Antibody to Evaluate Estrogen Receptor Content in Fine Needle Aspiration Breast Biopsies

Abstract

A monoclonal antibody prepared against estrogen receptor has been shown to be highly specific and sensitive for the detection and quantification of estrogen receptor in human breast lesions using immunohistochemical methods. A semiquantitative relationship has been shown between the intensity of staining and biochemical receptor analysis. To evaluate the usefulness of this technique in fine needle aspiration biopsies, 41 cases of breast cancer were studied. Nuclear localization of receptor antibody PAP complex was observed. Comparison of the immunocytochemical analysis of the aspiration cytologic specimens to the biochemical analysis of the excised tumor mass revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 89%, respectively. There was a significant semiquantitative correlation between the methods. These results extend the observation that antireceptor monoclonal antibody in immunohistochemical analysis is an effective tool in the evaluation of estrogen receptor content in human breast lesions and with careful specimen handling and proper controls may be extended to the evaluation of fine needle aspiration biopsies.

The cytochemical detection of oestrogen receptors in fine needle aspirates of breast cancer; correlation with biochemical assay and prediction of response to endocrine therapy

“…However, these specimens were not associated with either poorer cellularity or higher blood content than those showing a stronger correlation between cytochemistry and biochemistry. Nevertheless our finding of a correlation coefficient of + 0.73 (n = 56) for the quantitative relationship between staining on aspirates and receptor site concentration in a biopsy agrees well with the equivalent correlations of +0.74 (n=33) and +0.76 (n=35) reported by Flowers et al (1985) and Cavailles et al (1987) respectively. These correlations are higher than that of + 0.48 (n = 95) found by McLelland et al (1987), but their series included some comparisons between ERICA staining and DCC assays on different tumour deposits.…”

“…The generation of monoclonal antibodies against the human oestrogen receptor (Greene et al, 1980) has permitted the development of commercial kits for both biochemical (ER-EIA) and histochemical (ER-ICA) assays by Abbott Laboratories. The results of the latter technique have been shown to correlate well with those of established biochemical, steroid-binding (DCC) methods on biopsies of solid tumour (King et al, 1985;McLelland & Coombes, 1985;McCarty et al, 1985;Hawkins et al, 1986) and the technique has recently been extended to the assessment of receptor status in breast cancer cells collected by needle aspiration (McLelland & Coombes, 1985;Flowers et al, 1985;McLelland et al, 1987;Cavailles et al, 1987;Weintraub et al, 1987). We set out to examine the feasibility of using such a method and to compare the results of the technique with (a) those of our standard DCC assay on solid biopsy, established 15 years ago and (b) response to endocrine therapy in patients with large primary tumours.…”

Postmenopausal Serum Sex Steroids and Risk of Hormone Receptor–Positive and -Negative Breast Cancer: a Nested Case–Control Study

“…At the time of this study, insufficient information on HER2 status (n ¼ 37) had been collected to be included in the current analysis. To standardize the quantification of receptor status received from the EPIC centers, the following criteria for a positive receptor status were used; !10% cells stained, any "plussystem" description, !20 fmol/mg, an Allred score of !3, an IRS !2, or an H-score !10 (18)(19)(20)(21)(22).…”

Immunocytochemical assay for oestrogen receptor in fine needle aspirates of breast cancer by video image analysis

“…The majority of research groups performing ER immunocytochemistry on frozen sections or fine needle aspirate have employed a histological scoring index based on a combination of visual analyses of the intensity of immunostaining and proportion of immunostained nuclei (King et al, 1985;Pertschuk et al, 1985;Azavedo et al, 1986;Flowers et al, 1986;Jonat et al, 1986). This approach can lead to a high degree of subjectivity in the assessment of staining intensity and hence the proportion of stained nuclei, and this is difficult to control.…”