| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
American Journal of Pathology, Vol 129, 486-492, Copyright © 1987 by American Society for Investigative Pathology
REGULAR ARTICLES |
J Gerdes, H Pickartz, J Brotherton, J Hammerstein, H Weitzel and H Stein
Institute of Pathology, Free University of Berlin, West Germany.
The growth fraction (GF) and estrogen receptor (ER) status of 76 cases of breast cancer were investigated on frozen sections of the same tissue block by immunostaining with monoclonal antibodies (Ki-67 and anti ER antibody). In 55 cases of this series, the ER status was also determined by standard biochemical methods. Our study revealed an inverse correlation between GF and ER status. This negative relationship was most significant when both variables were determined immunohistologically in the same tissue block and less significant when GF was analyzed by immunohistology and ER status by biochemical methods. These data suggest that the immunohistologically assessed ER values characterize the receptor status of a given carcinoma better than the biochemical values, which leads to the conclusion that the immunohistologically determined close negative relationship between GF and ER reflects the actual in vivo situation of a given breast carcinoma case. However, the immunohistologic analysis also revealed that there is a proportion of exceptional cases, ie, those with a positive ER status and a large or moderately large GF. Because only half of the ER-positive breast carcinomas respond to endocrine therapy with objective remission., it is hypothesized that it might be preferentially these mentioned exceptional cases that fail to positively respond to endocrine treatment protocols.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. Nieto, L. Pena, M. D. Perez-Alenza, M. A. Sanchez, J. M. Flores, and M. Castano Immunohistologic Detection of Estrogen Receptor Alpha in Canine Mammary Tumors: Clinical and Pathologic Associations and Prognostic Significance Vet. Pathol., May 1, 2000; 37(3): 239 - 247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |