Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accurate Estrogen Receptor Quantification in Patients with Negative and Low-Positive Estrogen-Receptor-Expressing Breast Tumors: Sub-Analyses of Data from Two Clinical Studies

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Advances in Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Accurate assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) expression is crucial to ensure that patients with early breast cancer are accurately identified for appropriate treatment with endocrine therapy. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), compared with immunohistochemistry (IHC), may provide a more precise indication of ER status. Data were pooled and analyzed from two independent, but similarly designed, studies that examined ER status by IHC and the 21-gene Recurrence Score that employs RT-PCR-based methodology.

Methods

Tumor tissue from patients with early stage breast cancer where ER status could be determined by both IHC and RT-PCR was included. ER status by IHC staining was defined as ER-negative (< 1%), ER-low+ (1–10%), or ER+ (> 10%). ER status by RT-PCR was defined as ER-negative (≤ 6.5) or ER+ (> 6.5). Recurrence Score results from the 21-gene assay were reported on a continuous scale from 0 to 100. A sub-analysis examined the association between ER expression (Allred score 2–7) and response to a 14-day pre-surgery pulse with an aromatase inhibitor. A separate sub-analysis examined the association between ER expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression.

Results

Tumor specimens from 192 patients (aged 25–92 years) were included in the pooled analysis. Correlation between IHC- and RT-PCR-measured ER was strong for IHC-defined ER-negative and ER+ samples (r = 0.646 [95% CI 0.553–0.720]). There was 100% concordance for ER+ tumors; however, 56% of the ER-low+ tumors were negative by RT-PCR. Allred score correlated better with ER status measured by RT-PCR at pre-treatment (r = 0.83) than at post-treatment (r = 0.76). The majority (77%) of ER-negative and ER-low+ tumors were HER2-negative.

Conclusions

RT-PCR provided a more accurate assessment of ER expression in patients with ER-low+ tumors, and data support dual testing for patients with ER-low+ status to ensure appropriate treatment planning as it pertains to endocrine therapy.

Funding

Genomic Health, Inc.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:771–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer. www.nccn.org, Version 2.2018. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.

  3. Burstein HJ, Temin S, Anderson H, et al. Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2255–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Dowsett M, Allred C, Knox J, et al. Relationship between quantitative estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) status with recurrence in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1059–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hammond MEH, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2784–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dowsett M, Sestak I, Buus R, et al. Estrogen receptor expression in 21-gene recurrence score predicts increased late recurrence for estrogen-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:2763–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. DeSantis C, Howlader N, Cronin KA, Jemal A. Breast cancer incidence rates in U.S. women are no longer declining. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:733–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lim E, Metzger-Filho O, Winer EP. The natural history of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Oncology. 2012;26:688.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Prabhu JS, Korlimarla A, Desai K, et al. A majority of low (1–10%) ER positive breast cancers behave like hormone receptor negative tumors. J Cancer. 2014;5:156–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yi M, Huo L, Koenig KB, et al. Which threshold for ER positivity? A retrospective study based on 9639 patients. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1004–111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Deyarmin B, Kane JL, Valente AL, et al. Effect of ASCO/CAP guidelines for determining ER status on molecular subtype. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;1:87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. American Cancer Society. Targeted therapy for breast cancer. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-treating-targeted-therapy. 2018. Accessed 30 Oct 2018.

  13. Bentzon N, Düring M, Rasmussen BB, Mouridsen H, Kroman N. Prognostic effect of estrogen receptor status across age in primary breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:1089–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu KD, Wu J, Shen ZZ, Shao ZM. Hazard of breast cancer-specific mortality among women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer after five years from diagnosis: implication for extended endocrine therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol. 2012;97:E2201–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Verma S, Provencher L, Dent R. Emerging trends in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer in Canada: a survey. Current Oncology. 2011;18:180–90.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Iwamoto T, Booser D, Valero V, et al. Estrogen receptor (ER) mRNA and ER-related gene expression in breast cancers that are 1% to 10% ER-positive by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:729–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Badve SS, Baehner FL, Gray R, et al. Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2473–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baehner FL, Maddala T, Alexander C, et al. A Kaiser Permanente population-based study of ER and PR expression by the standard method, immunohistochemistry (IHC), compared to a new method, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In: Presented at the ASCO Breast Cancer Symposium. September 7-8, 2007; San Francisco, CA. Abstract #88.

  19. O'Connor SM, Beriwal S, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. Concordance between semiquantitative immunohistochemical assay and oncotype DX RT-PCR assay for estrogen and progesterone receptors. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010;18:268–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim C, Tang G, Pogue-Geile KL, et al. Estrogen receptor (ESR1) mRNA expression and benefit from tamoxifen in the treatment and prevention of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4160–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3726–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, et al. Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene Recurrence Score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a transATAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1829–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:55–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Discordance in hormone receptor (HR) assessment by IHC and RT-PCR in an estrogen receptor (ER) low-positive group (1–10% positive cells): Does accurate assessment of HR status require dual testing? Presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) Annual Meeting, March 2014; San Diego, CA.

  26. Baehner FL, Achacoso N, Maddala T, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 assessment in a case-control study: comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and quantitative reverse transcription performed by central laboratories. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4300–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dixon JM, Turnbull A, Renshaw L, et al. Association of estrogen receptor (ER) levels and prediction of antiproliferative effect of hormone therapy (HT) in lower ER-expressing tumors. Presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) Annual Meeting; December 2014; San Antonio, TX.

  28. Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Modern Pathol. 1998;11:155–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Inwald EC, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, Hofstädter F, et al. Ki-67 is a prognostic parameter in breast cancer patients: results of a large population-based cohort of a cancer registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139:539–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:18–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Allred DC, Carlson RW, Berry DA, et al. NCCN Task Force report: estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2009;7(suppl 6):S1–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:111–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7212–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Akashi-Tanaka S, Shimizu C, Ando M, et al. 21-gene expression profile assay on core needle biopsies predicts responses to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients. Breast. 2009;18:171–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: the TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y.

  37. Ueno T, Masuda N, Yamanaka T, et al. Evaluating the 21-gene assay Recurrence Score® as a predictor of clinical response to 24 weeks of neoadjuvant exemestane in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2014;19:607–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Müller BM, Kronenwett R, Hennig G, et al. Quantitative determination of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 mRNA in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue—a new option for predictive biomarker assessment in breast cancer. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2011;20:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

J. Michael Dixon and Arran Turnbull acknowledge the support of Breast Cancer Now. The authors would like to sincerely thank Amy Sing, MD (formerly an employee of Genomic Health, Inc.) for her coordination of the study and significant intellectual contributions to the development of the initial draft of manuscript.

Funding

This analysis was funded by Genomic Health. The study sponsor, Genomic Health, Inc., also funded the article processing charges for this article. All authors had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.

Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance

Writing, editorial, and graphics support for the development of this manuscript was provided by Penny Baron, MS and Robert Steger, PhD of CodonMedical, an Ashfield Company, part of UDG Healthcare plc, funded by Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval to the version to be published.

Prior Presentation

Information in this article has been presented previously, in part, as posters:

  • Sing A, Dixon JM, Turnbull A, et al. Association of estrogen receptor (ER) levels and prediction of antiproliferative effect of hormone therapy in lower ER-expressing tumors. 37th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS 2014); December 9–13, 2013; San Antonio, Texas. Abstract #P3-06-35.

  • Singh B, Ziguridis N, Axelrod D, et al. Discordance in hormone receptor (HR) assessment by IHC and RT-PCR in an estrogen receptor (ER) low-positive group (1–10% positive cells): Does accurate assessment of HR status require dual testing? 36th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS 2013); December 10–14, 2013; San Antonio, Texas. Abstract #P3-05-08.

  • Singh B, Ziguridis N, Butler S, et al. Comparison of HER2 testing by IHC/FISH and RT-PCR in estrogen receptor negative or borderline patients with early stage breast cancer. 102nd United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) Annual Meeting; March 2–8, 2013; Baltimore, Maryland. Abstract #282.

Disclosures

J. Michael Dixon, Laura M. Arthur, Deborah M. Axelrod, Lorna Renshaw, Arran Turnbull, and Oliver Young declare that they have no conflict of interest. Jeremy S. Thomas has moved affiliations and is now employed by Q2 Solutions, The Alba Campus, Rosebank, Livingston, UK. He has no conflicts of interest to declare. David A. Cameron attended an advisory board for Genomic Health, Inc. (any income associated with the advisory board was paid to Dr. Cameron’s employer and none to Dr. Cameron). Cynthia A. Loman is an employee of and declares stock ownership in Genomic Health, Inc. Debbie Jakubowski is an employee of and declares stock ownership in Genomic Health, Inc. Frederick L. Baehner is an employee of and declares stock ownership in Genomic Health, Inc. Baljit Singh is a member of the speakers’ bureau for Genomic Health, Inc. and was previously employed (during the conduct of Study 1) by New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. In study 1 (New York University), the link between patient identifiers and clinico/pathological data was permanently deleted and the study was 'exempt' from review by the New York University Internal Review Board. Patients in study 2 (Edinburgh Breast Unit) were recruited under ethical approval from the South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 03, approved in 2002, reference LREC/2002/8/23.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article/as supplementary information files.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Edinburgh Breast Unit, Edinburgh, UK

    J. Michael Dixon, Laura M. Arthur, Lorna Renshaw, Jeremy S. Thomas & Oliver Young

  2. Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, IGMM, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK

    David A. Cameron

  3. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Deborah M. Axelrod

  4. Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK

    Arran Turnbull

  5. Genomic Health Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA

    Cynthia A. Loman, Debbie Jakubowski & Frederick L. Baehner

  6. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Frederick L. Baehner

  7. White Plains Hospital, White Plains, NY, USA

    Baljit Singh

Authors
  1. J. Michael Dixon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura M. Arthur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah M. Axelrod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lorna Renshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeremy S. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arran Turnbull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Oliver Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Cynthia A. Loman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Debbie Jakubowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Frederick L. Baehner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Baljit Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baljit Singh.

Additional information

Enhanced Digital Features

To view enhanced digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7649864.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 518 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dixon, J.M., Cameron, D.A., Arthur, L.M. et al. Accurate Estrogen Receptor Quantification in Patients with Negative and Low-Positive Estrogen-Receptor-Expressing Breast Tumors: Sub-Analyses of Data from Two Clinical Studies. Adv Ther 36, 828–841 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-0896-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-0896-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation