Receptor, erbB-2 Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2013;35(3):97-102
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032013000300002
PURPOSE:To compare the prognostic and predictive features between in situ and invasive components of ductal breast carcinomas. METHODS:We selected 146 consecutive breast samples with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) associated with adjacent invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). We evaluated nuclear grade and immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in both components, in situ and invasive, and the Ki-67 percentage of cells in the invasive part. The DCIS and IBC were classified in molecular surrogate types determined by the immunohistochemical profile as luminal (RE/PR-positive/ HER2-negative), triple-positive (RE/RP/HER2-positive), HER2-enriched (ER/PR-negative/HER2-positive), and triple-negative (RE/RP/HER2-negative). Discrimination between luminal A and luminal B was not performed due to statistical purposes. Correlations between the categories in the two groups were made using the Spearman correlation method. RESULTS:There was a significant correlation between nuclear grade (p<0.0001), expression of RE/RP (p<0.0001), overexpression of HER2 (p<0.0001), expression of EGFR (p<0.0001), and molecular profile (p<0.0001) between components in situ and IBC. CK 5/6 showed different distribution in DCIS and IBC, presenting a significant association with the triple-negative phenotype in IBC, but a negative association among DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that classical prognostic and predictive features of IBC are already determined in the preinvasive stage of the disease. However the role of CK5/6 in invasive carcinoma may be different from the precursor lesions.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2013;35(3):97-102
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032013000300002
PURPOSE:To compare the prognostic and predictive features between in situ and invasive components of ductal breast carcinomas. METHODS:We selected 146 consecutive breast samples with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) associated with adjacent invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). We evaluated nuclear grade and immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in both components, in situ and invasive, and the Ki-67 percentage of cells in the invasive part. The DCIS and IBC were classified in molecular surrogate types determined by the immunohistochemical profile as luminal (RE/PR-positive/ HER2-negative), triple-positive (RE/RP/HER2-positive), HER2-enriched (ER/PR-negative/HER2-positive), and triple-negative (RE/RP/HER2-negative). Discrimination between luminal A and luminal B was not performed due to statistical purposes. Correlations between the categories in the two groups were made using the Spearman correlation method. RESULTS:There was a significant correlation between nuclear grade (p<0.0001), expression of RE/RP (p<0.0001), overexpression of HER2 (p<0.0001), expression of EGFR (p<0.0001), and molecular profile (p<0.0001) between components in situ and IBC. CK 5/6 showed different distribution in DCIS and IBC, presenting a significant association with the triple-negative phenotype in IBC, but a negative association among DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that classical prognostic and predictive features of IBC are already determined in the preinvasive stage of the disease. However the role of CK5/6 in invasive carcinoma may be different from the precursor lesions.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009;31(9):461-467
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032009000900007
PURPOSE: to evaluate the expression of erbB-2 and of the estrogen and progesterone (ER/P) hormonal receptors in the transition regions between the in situ and the invasive fractions of ductal breast neoplasia (ISDC and IDC, respectively). METHODS: Eighty-five cases of breast neoplasia, containing contiguous ISDC and IDC areas, were selected. Histological specimens from the ISDC and the IDC areas were obtained through the tissue microarray (TMA) technique. The erbB-2 and the ER/PR expressions were evaluated through conventional immunohistochemistry. The McNemar's test was used for the comparative analysis of the expressions of erbB-2 protein and the ER/PR in the in situ and invasive regions of the tumors. The confidence intervals were set to 5% (p=0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the cross-tabulation agreement of the erbB-2 and the ER/PR expression in the ISDC and the IDC areas. RESULTS: the erbB-2 expression has not differed between the ISDC and the IDC areas (p=0.38). Comparing the two areas in each case, there was agreement in the expression of erbB-2 (ICC=0.64), PR (ICC=0.71) and ER (ICC=0.64). Restricting the analysis to tumors with the in situ component harboring necrosis (comedo), the ICC for erbB-2 was 0.4, compared to 0.6 for the whole sample. In this select group, the ICC for PR/ER did not differ substantially from those obtained with the complete dataset: as for the ER, ICC=0.7 (versus 0.7 for the entire sample) and for PR, ICC=0.7 (versus 0.6 for the entire sample). CONCLUSIONS: our findings suggest that the erbB-2 and the ER/PR expressions do not differ in the contiguous in situ and invasive components of breast ductal tumors.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009;31(9):461-467
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032009000900007
PURPOSE: to evaluate the expression of erbB-2 and of the estrogen and progesterone (ER/P) hormonal receptors in the transition regions between the in situ and the invasive fractions of ductal breast neoplasia (ISDC and IDC, respectively). METHODS: Eighty-five cases of breast neoplasia, containing contiguous ISDC and IDC areas, were selected. Histological specimens from the ISDC and the IDC areas were obtained through the tissue microarray (TMA) technique. The erbB-2 and the ER/PR expressions were evaluated through conventional immunohistochemistry. The McNemar's test was used for the comparative analysis of the expressions of erbB-2 protein and the ER/PR in the in situ and invasive regions of the tumors. The confidence intervals were set to 5% (p=0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the cross-tabulation agreement of the erbB-2 and the ER/PR expression in the ISDC and the IDC areas. RESULTS: the erbB-2 expression has not differed between the ISDC and the IDC areas (p=0.38). Comparing the two areas in each case, there was agreement in the expression of erbB-2 (ICC=0.64), PR (ICC=0.71) and ER (ICC=0.64). Restricting the analysis to tumors with the in situ component harboring necrosis (comedo), the ICC for erbB-2 was 0.4, compared to 0.6 for the whole sample. In this select group, the ICC for PR/ER did not differ substantially from those obtained with the complete dataset: as for the ER, ICC=0.7 (versus 0.7 for the entire sample) and for PR, ICC=0.7 (versus 0.6 for the entire sample). CONCLUSIONS: our findings suggest that the erbB-2 and the ER/PR expressions do not differ in the contiguous in situ and invasive components of breast ductal tumors.
