13.04.2015 Views

Assessment of Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Breast ... - Dako

Assessment of Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Breast ... - Dako

Assessment of Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Breast ... - Dako

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Assessment</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Prognostic</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Predictive</strong><br />

<strong>Factors</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Breast</strong> Cancer by Immunohistochemistry<br />

D. Craig Allred, MD<br />

<strong>Breast</strong> Center, Baylor College <strong>of</strong> Medic<strong>in</strong>e,<br />

Houston Texas<br />

Most decisions for treatment <strong>of</strong> breast<br />

cancer are made on the basis <strong>of</strong> prognostic<br />

factors such as tumor, nodal, <strong>and</strong><br />

metastasis stag<strong>in</strong>g variables. In addition<br />

to these traditional variables, predictive<br />

factors such as status <strong>of</strong> hormone<br />

receptors are play<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly important<br />

roles. Pathologists today are evaluat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

progesterone- <strong>and</strong> estrogen- receptors<br />

primarily by immunohistochemical methods<br />

which have largely replaced the earlier<br />

biochemical lig<strong>and</strong>-b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g tests.<br />

Although many studies suggest that these<br />

immunohistochemical tests are at least as<br />

good <strong>in</strong> predict<strong>in</strong>g patient outcomes as<br />

the older biochemical assays, there rema<strong>in</strong><br />

important methodological issues to resolve<br />

before immunohistochemistry achieves the<br />

cl<strong>in</strong>ical validation necessary to justify its<br />

rout<strong>in</strong>e use.<br />

Most important among these unresolved<br />

issues are st<strong>and</strong>ardization <strong>of</strong> test methodology<br />

<strong>and</strong> how to <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>of</strong><br />

results. 1 Some laboratories have gone<br />

to considerable efforts to validate their<br />

methods <strong>of</strong> test<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> evaluat<strong>in</strong>g results,<br />

whereas other laboratories have not<br />

adequately addressed these issues <strong>and</strong><br />

might not even be aware <strong>of</strong> this necessity.<br />

Unless laboratories are prepared to validate<br />

their own tests or use validated procedures<br />

developed by others, they run the risk<br />

<strong>of</strong> report<strong>in</strong>g mean<strong>in</strong>gless <strong>and</strong> potentially<br />

harmful results.<br />

ER<br />

Estrogen receptor sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, 20x<br />

(PS4) + (IS2) = TS6<br />

Estrogen Receptor<br />

For the past few years our laboratory has<br />

assessed estrogen-receptor status by<br />

immunohistochemistry on formal<strong>in</strong>-fixed,<br />

paraff<strong>in</strong>-embedded tissues. The sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

signal was scored by estimat<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> positive tumor cells <strong>and</strong> their<br />

average sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tensity. The <strong>in</strong>tra- <strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>in</strong>ter-observer reproducibility <strong>of</strong> this method<br />

was more than 90 percent <strong>in</strong> our laboratory.<br />

Figure 1 depicts the method <strong>of</strong> scor<strong>in</strong>g both<br />

proportion <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>and</strong> comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g these<br />

values <strong>in</strong>to a comprehensive total score (TS)<br />

that weighs both factors.<br />

Tumors with total scores (TS) <strong>of</strong> three or<br />

more were reported as “positive” on the<br />

basis <strong>of</strong> a cutpo<strong>in</strong>t analysis <strong>of</strong> disease-free<br />

survival (DFS) <strong>in</strong> a study <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g more<br />

than 1,900 patients. 2 This value separated<br />

patients <strong>in</strong>to low- <strong>and</strong> high-risk subsets<br />

with approximately 15 percent difference<br />

<strong>in</strong> disease-free survival at five years. In the<br />

subset <strong>of</strong> almost 820 patients receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />

no adjuvant therapy, the difference <strong>in</strong> DFS<br />

at five years was only approximately 10<br />

percent <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that estrogen-receptor<br />

was a weak prognostic <strong>in</strong>dicator. However,<br />

as <strong>in</strong> the subset <strong>of</strong> nearly 800 patients<br />

receiv<strong>in</strong>g endocr<strong>in</strong>e therapy (almost always<br />

tamoxifen), positive estrogen-receptor<br />

PR<br />

Progesterone receptor sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, 20x<br />

(PS3) + (IS1) = TS4<br />

status was associated with a significant<br />

improvement <strong>in</strong> DFS (about 30 percent<br />

at five years), emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g the strong<br />

predictive power <strong>of</strong> assess<strong>in</strong>g estrogenreceptor<br />

by this method.<br />

Progesterone Receptor<br />

The validation <strong>of</strong> progesterone-receptor by<br />

immunohistochemistry is still evolv<strong>in</strong>g. 3,4 In<br />

our laboratory we have performed a large<br />

cl<strong>in</strong>ical study <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g more than 1,400 breast<br />

cancer patients. In this study immunosta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

for progesterone-receptor was scored by the<br />

same method as illustrated for estrogenreceptor<br />

<strong>in</strong> Figure 1. Tumors with TS <strong>of</strong> three<br />

or more were def<strong>in</strong>ed as positive on the basis<br />

<strong>of</strong> a cutpo<strong>in</strong>t analysis <strong>of</strong> DFS that optimally<br />

separated patients <strong>in</strong>to low <strong>and</strong> high risk<br />

subsets. In the subset <strong>of</strong> 713 patients not<br />

receiv<strong>in</strong>g adjuvant therapy, the difference<br />

<strong>in</strong> DFS at five years was approximately<br />

five percent, suggest<strong>in</strong>g a weak prognostic<br />

value. However, <strong>in</strong> the subset <strong>of</strong> 479 patients<br />

receiv<strong>in</strong>g adjuvant endocr<strong>in</strong>e therapy (nearly<br />

always tamoxifen), positive progesteronereceptor<br />

status was associated with a<br />

relatively large improvement <strong>in</strong> DFS (about<br />

20 percent at five years), emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the strong predictive power <strong>of</strong> assess<strong>in</strong>g<br />

progesterone-receptor by this method.<br />

| Connection 9 2005


Allred Scor<strong>in</strong>g Guidel<strong>in</strong>e for ER/PR pharmDx<br />

Proportion<br />

Score<br />

<br />

0 to 1 100<br />

<br />

1 100 to<br />

1 10 <br />

1 10 to<br />

1 3 <br />

1 3 to 2 3<br />

<br />

2 3 to 1<br />

Intensity<br />

Score<br />

<br />

<br />

(TS range 0, 28)<br />

<br />

Figure 1. Scor<strong>in</strong>g Guidel<strong>in</strong>es for Immunohistochemical Sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Estrogen-receptor<br />

Conclusions<br />

There is still no consensus today concern<strong>in</strong>g<br />

methodology for assess<strong>in</strong>g<br />

progesterone- <strong>and</strong> estrogen-receptor<br />

status by immunohistochemistry. Cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />

laboratories <strong>of</strong>fer<strong>in</strong>g these tests us<strong>in</strong>g their<br />

own <strong>in</strong>-house methods should perform<br />

rigorous validation studies, or should<br />

follow procedures from other laboratories<br />

that have performed such studies. For<br />

laboratories where such validation studies<br />

are impractical, an alternative that is now<br />

available is to use one <strong>of</strong> the FDA-cleared<br />

immunohistochemistry tests that have been<br />

cl<strong>in</strong>ically validated by calibration to patient<br />

outcomes. Almost certa<strong>in</strong>ly a new class <strong>of</strong><br />

immunohistochemistry tests, some <strong>of</strong> which<br />

are still <strong>in</strong> development, will be evaluated<br />

<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpreted us<strong>in</strong>g multivariate analysis<br />

to identify a mean<strong>in</strong>gful prognostic <strong>in</strong>dex.<br />

That <strong>in</strong>dex will be more powerful than the<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividual factors <strong>in</strong> identify<strong>in</strong>g patients at<br />

risk for disease recurrence.<br />

Correspondence should be directed to:<br />

D. Craig Allred, MD<br />

<strong>Breast</strong> Center, Baylor College <strong>of</strong> Medic<strong>in</strong>e<br />

dcallred@breastcenter.tmc.edu<br />

K1903<br />

K1904<br />

Related Products<br />

ER/PR pharmDx TM for manual use<br />

ER/PR pharmDx TM for use on <strong>Dako</strong> Autosta<strong>in</strong>er / Autosta<strong>in</strong>er Plus<br />

ER/PR pharmDx TM kits were developed <strong>and</strong> validated for use with<br />

the follow<strong>in</strong>g companion reagents from <strong>Dako</strong>.<br />

Materials required, but not supplied <strong>in</strong>clude:<br />

S3006<br />

S2003<br />

S1699/S1700<br />

Wash Buffer<br />

Dual Endogenous Enzyme Block<br />

Target Retrieval Solution<br />

Calibrated pressure cooker with the capability <strong>of</strong> reach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

a temperature <strong>of</strong> 125ºC for 5 m<strong>in</strong>utes<br />

References<br />

1. Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, <strong>and</strong> Clark GM.<br />

<strong>Prognostic</strong> <strong>and</strong> predictive factors <strong>in</strong> breast cancer by<br />

immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 11: 155-<br />

168, 1998.<br />

2. Clark GM, Harvey JM, Osborne CK, <strong>and</strong> Allred DC.<br />

Estrogen receptor status (ER) determ<strong>in</strong>ed by immunohistochemistry<br />

(IHC) is superior to biochemical lig<strong>and</strong>b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />

(LB) assay for evaluat<strong>in</strong>g breast cancer patients<br />

(abstract). Proc Am Soc Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol 16:129A, 1997.<br />

3. Berardo M, Clark GM, de Moor C, Osborne CK,<br />

Weig<strong>and</strong> RA, <strong>and</strong> Allred DC. <strong>Prognostic</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />

predictive properties <strong>of</strong> immunohistochemical<br />

progesterone receptors <strong>in</strong> breast cancer (abstract).<br />

Proc Am Soc Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol 14:110A, 1995.<br />

4. Mohs<strong>in</strong> SK, Weiss H, Havighurst T, Clark GM, Berardo<br />

M, Roanh LD, To TV, Zho Q, Love RR, <strong>and</strong> Allred DC.<br />

Progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry <strong>and</strong><br />

cl<strong>in</strong>ical outcome <strong>in</strong> breast cancer: a validation study.<br />

Mod Pathol 17: 1545-1554, 2004.<br />

Connection 9 2006 |

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!