Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

JPTM : Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
1 "messenger"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Original Article
Automated immunohistochemical assessment ability to evaluate estrogen and progesterone receptor status compared with quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in breast carcinoma patients
Taesung Jeon, Aeree Kim, Chungyeul Kim
J Pathol Transl Med. 2021;55(1):33-42.   Published online December 3, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2020.09.29
  • 4,089 View
  • 130 Download
  • 3 Citations
AbstractAbstract PDF
Background
This study aimed to investigate the capability of an automated immunohistochemical (IHC) evaluation of hormonal receptor status in breast cancer patients compared to a well-validated quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) method.
Methods
This study included 93 invasive breast carcinoma cases that had both standard IHC assay and Oncotype Dx assay results. The same paraffin blocks on which Oncotype Dx assay had been performed were selected. Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) receptor status were evaluated through IHC stains using SP1 monoclonal antibody for ER, and 1E2 monoclonal antibody for PR. All ER and PR immunostained slides were scanned, and invasive tumor areas were marked. Using the QuantCenter image analyzer provided by 3DHISTECH, IHC staining of hormone receptors was measured and converted to histochemical scores (H scores). Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between Oncotype Dx hormone receptor scores and H scores, and between Oncotype Dx scores and Allred scores.
Results
H scores measured by an automated imaging system showed high concordance with RT-qPCR scores. ER concordance was 98.9% (92/93), and PR concordance was 91.4% (85/93). The correlation magnitude between automated H scores and RT-qPCR scores was high and comparable to those of Allred scores (for ER, 0.51 vs. 0.37 [p=.121], for PR, 0.70 vs. 0.72 [p=.39]).
Conclusions
Automated H scores showed a high concordance with quantitative mRNA expression levels measured by RT-qPCR.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Marker assessments in ER‐ positive breast cancers: old markers, new applications?
    Joshua J X Li, Gary M Tse
    Histopathology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • The Story of the Magee Equations: The Ultimate in Applied Immunohistochemistry
    Rohit Bhargava, David J. Dabbs
    Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Dose-Dependent Relationship between Protection of Thioacetamide-Induced Acute Liver Injury and Hyperammonemia and Concentration of Lactobacillus salivarius Li01 in Mice
    Pengcheng Lou, Yangfan Shen, Aoxiang Zhuge, Longxian Lv, Xueling Zhu, Yin Yuan, Liya Yang, Kaicen Wang, Bo Li, Lanjuan Li, Joanna B. Goldberg
    Microbiology Spectrum.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef

JPTM : Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine