Search

Purpose: Endocrine therapies, such as tamoxifen, are commonly given to most patients with estrogen receptor (ERα)–positive breast carcinoma but are not indicated for persons with ERα-negative cancer. The factors responsible for response to tamoxifen in 5% to 10% of patients with ERα-negative tumors are not clear. The aim of the present study was to elucidate the biology and prognostic role of the second ER, ERβ, in patients treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. Experimental Design: We investigated ERβ by immunohistochemistry in 353 stage II primary breast tumors from patients treated with 2 years adjuvant tamoxifen, and generated gene expression profiles for a representative subset of 88 tumors. Results: ERβ was associated with increased survival (distant disease-free survival, P = 0.01; overall survival, P = 0.22), and in particular within ERα-negative patients (P = 0.003; P = 0.04), but not in the ERα-positive subgroup (P = 0.49; P = 0.88). Lack of ERβ conferred early relapse (hazard ratio, 14; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-106; P = 0.01) within the ERα-negative subgroup even after adjustment for other markers. ERα was an independent marker only within the ERβ-negative tumors (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.89; P = 0.02). An ERβ gene expression profile was identified and was markedly different from the ERα signature. Conclusion: Expression of ERβ is an independent marker for favorable prognosis after adjuvant tamoxifen treatment in ERα-negative breast cancer patients and involves a gene expression program distinct from ERα. These results may be highly clinically significant, because in the United States alone, ∼10,000 women are diagnosed annually with ERα-negative/ERβ-positive breast carcinoma and may benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen.

Histopathological diagnosis of small focus carcinomas in prostatic needle biopsies is often assisted by IHC. To make a definitive diagnosis the pathologist must compare IHC findings with hematoxylin and eosin stained tissue morphology. We introduce what is to our knowledge a new application of virtual microscopy, in which hematoxylin and eosin, and IHC stains done sequentially on the same microscope slide can be simultaneously displayed and compared on a computer screen.A total of 30 hematoxylin and eosin stained prostatic needle biopsies were scanned with a computer controlled microscope. The slides were destained and then immunostained with a cocktail of AMACR and p63 antibodies, which labels the nuclei of nonmalignant basal cells (p63) and the cytoplasm of neoplastic glandular cells suspicious for malignancy (AMACR). The slides were then scanned again and the pairs of virtual slides were aligned for synchronized viewing.The presented technique was found helpful when suspicious lesions were small and when examining the immunoprofile of specimens was warranted, in addition to examining hematoxylin and eosin stained tissue morphology. The usefulness of our approach based on virtual microscopy can be evaluated on the website , which also serves as an educational tool for self-learning the correlation between hematoxylin and eosin stained tissue morphology, and AMACR/p63 IHC in prostate biopsies.The technology for simultaneously viewing sequentially hematoxylin and eosin and IHC stained prostate biopsies can be readily used for educational purposes, as exemplified by our website, and along with the availability of rapid virtual slide scanners it can also be used for clinical diagnostics.

Breast ducts contain two types of epithelial cells, inner luminal cells and outer basal/myoepithelial cells. These cells can be distinguished by their immunophenotype. Cytokeratins (CKs) 8 and 18 are expressed in the luminal layer, whereas CK5/14 and the transcription factor p63 characterize the basal epithelial layer. We studied a population-based cohort of 288 sporadic ductal invasive cancers and found 9% positive for CK5/14 and 4% positive for p63. Using a highly sensitive polymer-based immunohistochemical staining, all sporadic tumors were positive for the luminal CK8/18, including those positive for CK5/14. Pairs of primary tumors and metastases (n = 38) were always concordant for CK5/14 expression. The majority of the CK5/14-positive cases were of histologic grade III (P = 0.0007) and steroid hormone receptor negative (P < 0.0001). CK5/14 expression was inversely associated with HER-2 oncogene amplification, but only in the subgroup of estrogen receptor-negative tumors (P = 0.007). In a separate set of 42 hereditary breast cancers, the majority (78%) of the BRCA1-associated tumors, but only one of 15 BRCA2-associated tumors was positive for CK5/14. In contrast to sporadic CK5/14-positive tumors, BRCA1-associated tumors displayed less intense CK8/18 staining, including some truly CK5/14-positive CK8/18-negative cases. These results suggest that CK5/14-positive sporadic breast cancers arise from glandularly committed progenitor cells rather than true CK8/18-negative basal cells.

Purpose: Breast carcinomas expressing basal epithelium cytokeratins constitute a tumor subgroup that is typically hormone receptor negative and shows a distinct gene expression profile. Based on variable basal cytokeratin immunostaining patterns, we hypothesized that the “basal phenotype” tumor group may comprise more than one biological entity. Experimental Design: Basal cytokeratins 5 and 14 (CK5/14) were stained by immunohistochemistry and the percentage of positive cells was defined by image analysis. The results thus obtained were compared with clinicopathologic characteristics and relapse-free survival. Results: Of the 506 breast tumors, 53 (10.5%) showed immunoreactivity for CK5/14. Basal cytokeratin expression showed up as two microscopically distinguishable subtypes, i.e., a uniformly positive type (“basal”) and a partially positive type (“basoluminal”) often displaying a checkerboard-type intratumoral heterogeneity. These subgroups could also be separated with a third basal cytokeratin (CK17, P < 0.0001). Both basal and basoluminal subtypes were hormone receptor negative and of high grade, but differed with respect to the Ki-67 labeling index (P = 0.0014), vimentin (P = 0.005), and c-kit (P = 0.02), which were more frequently expressed in basal than in basoluminal tumors. In contrast, the amplification of HER-2 was found almost exclusively in the basoluminal subgroup (P = 0.009). Compared with the basal tumors, basoluminal tumors associated with significantly shorter relapse-free survival (P = 0.01), which was not explained by their more frequent HER-2 amplification. Conclusions: We conclude that the intratumoral heterogeneity in basal cytokeratin expression can be used to define two distinct breast cancer subtypes, basal and basoluminal, with distinctive features related to proliferation activity, oncogene and biomarker status, and patient survival.