Cargando…

Is oestrogen receptor-negative/progesterone receptor-positive (ER−/PR+) a real pathological entity?

BACKGROUND: The existence of oestrogen receptor-negative (ER−)/progesterone receptor-positive (PR+) breast cancer continues to be an area of controversy amongst oncologists and pathologists. METHODS: To re-evaluate breast cancers originally classified as ER−/PR+ via Oncotype DX® assay and compare mo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Onitilo, Adedayo A, Engel, Jessica, Joseph, Adedayo O, Li, Ya-Huei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cancer Intelligence 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8426004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34567263
http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2021.1278
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The existence of oestrogen receptor-negative (ER−)/progesterone receptor-positive (PR+) breast cancer continues to be an area of controversy amongst oncologists and pathologists. METHODS: To re-evaluate breast cancers originally classified as ER−/PR+ via Oncotype DX® assay and compare molecular phenotype with Recurrence Score® (RS) result, clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes were retrospectively obtained from electronic health records between January 1998 and June 2005. Archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour specimens were tested for the expression of ER, PR and human-epidermal-growth-factor-2. The number of positive ER−/PR+ samples confirmed by transcriptional analysis was the primary outcome of interest with event-free and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Biopsies from 26 patients underwent Oncotype DX testing and analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 60% were middle-aged (40–50 years old) women, and 84.6% had invasive ductal carcinoma. Based on the Oncotype DX assay, approximately 65% (N = 17) had ER+/PR+ status; 23% (N = 6) had ER−/PR− status; and 12% had a single hormone positive receptor (1 ER–/PR+, 2 ER+/PR–) status. Almost one-quarter of patients were stratified into the low-RS (<18) or intermediate-RS (18–30) results, and half of the patients had a high-RS (>30) result. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest the ER−/PR+ subtype is not a reproducible entity and emphasises the value of retesting this subtype via molecular methods for appropriate treatment selection and patient outcomes. Multigene assay analysis may serve as a second-line or confirming tool for clinical determination of ER/PR phenotype in breast cancer patients for targeted therapies.