The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Re-evaluating Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials: Assessing Hormone Receptor Status by Immunohistochemical Versus Extraction Assays
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor levels of steroid hormone receptors, a factor used to select adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer, are currently determined with immunohistochemical assays. These assays have a discordance of 10%-30% with previously used extraction assays. We assessed the concordance and predictive value of hormone receptor status as determined by immunohistochemical and extraction assays on specimens from International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials VIII and IX. These trials predominantly used extraction assays and compared adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone among pre- and postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer. Trial conclusions were that combination therapy provided a benefit to pre- and postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors but not to ER-positive postmenopausal patients. ER-positive premenopausal patients required further study. METHODS: Tumor specimens from 571 premenopausal and 976 postmenopausal patients on which extraction assays had determined ER and progesterone receptor (PgR) levels before randomization from October 1, 1988, through October 1, 1999, were re-evaluated with an immunohistochemical assay in a central pathology laboratory. The endpoint was disease-free survival. Hazard ratios of recurrence or death for treatment comparisons were estimated with Cox proportional hazards regression models, and discriminatory ability was evaluated with the c index. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Concordance of hormone receptor status determined by both assays ranged from 74% (kappa = 0.48) for PgR among postmenopausal patients to 88% (kappa = 0.66) for ER in postmenopausal patients. Hazard ratio estimates were similar for the association between disease-free survival and ER status (among all patients) or PgR status (among postmenopausal patients) as determined by the two methods. However, among premenopausal patients treated with endocrine therapy alone, the discriminatory ability of PgR status as determined by immunohistochemical assay was statistically significantly better (c index = 0.60 versus 0.51; P = .003) than that determined by extraction assay, and so immunohistochemically determined PgR status could predict disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Trial conclusions in which ER status (for all patients) or PgR status (for postmenopausal patients) was determined by immunohistochemical assay supported those determined by extraction assays. However, among premenopausal patients, trial conclusions drawn from PgR status differed--immunohistochemically determined PgR status could predict response to endocrine therapy, unlike that determined by the extraction assay.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hammond, M. E. H., Hayes, D. F., Dowsett, M., Allred, D. C., Hagerty, K. L., Badve, S., Fitzgibbons, P. L., Francis, G., Goldstein, N. S., Hayes, M., et al. (2010) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/134.6.907 · Cited by 895
Self-citationIwamoto, T., Booser, D., Valero, V., Murray, J. L., Koenig, K., Esteva, F. J., Ueno, N. T., Zhang, J., Shi, W., Qi, Y., et al. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.36.2574 · Cited by 288
Effect of ASCO/CAP guidelines for determining ER status on molecular subtype
Deyarmin, B., Kane, J. L., Valente, A. L., van Laar, R., Gallagher, C., Shriver, C. D., & Ellsworth, R. E. (2013) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-012-2588-8 · Cited by 149
Chen, T., Zhang, N., Moran, M. S., Su, P., Haffty, B. G., & Yang, Q. (2018) · Clinical Breast Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2017.06.005 · Cited by 94
Chen, X.-S., Wang, K.-S., Guo, W., Li, L.-Y., Yu, P., Sun, X.-Y., Wang, H.-Y., Guan, Y.-D., Tao, Y.-G., Ding, B.-N., et al. (2020) · Theranostics · doi:10.7150/thno.39814 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Regan, M. M., Viale, G., Mastropasqua, M. G., Maiorano, E., Golouh, R., Carbone, A., Brown, B., Suurküla, M., Langman, G., Mazzucchelli, L., Braye, S., Grigolato, P., Gelber, R. D., Castiglione-Gertsch, M., Price, K. N., Coates, A. S., Goldhirsch, A., & Gusterson, B.
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-11-01
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 1571-1581
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2143865991
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Re-evaluating Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials: Assessing Hormone Receptor Status by Immunohistochemical Versus Extraction Assays. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djj415
- The paper
- Regan, M. M., Viale, G., Mastropasqua, M. G., Maiorano, E., Golouh, R., Carbone, A., Brown, B., Suurküla, M., Langman, G., Mazzucchelli, L., Braye, S., Grigolato, P., Gelber, R. D., Castiglione-Gertsch, M., Price, K. N., Coates, A. S., Goldhirsch, A., & Gusterson, B. (2006). Re-evaluating Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials: Assessing Hormone Receptor Status by Immunohistochemical Versus Extraction Assays. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj415
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.