IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0015031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimising Immunohistochemical False Negative ER Classification Using a Complementary 23 Gene Expression Signature of ER Status

Author

Listed:
  • Qiyuan Li
  • Aron C Eklund
  • Nicolai Juul
  • Benjamin Haibe-Kains
  • Christopher T Workman
  • Andrea L Richardson
  • Zoltan Szallasi
  • Charles Swanton

Abstract

Background: Expression of the oestrogen receptor (ER) in breast cancer predicts benefit from endocrine therapy. Minimising the frequency of false negative ER status classification is essential to identify all patients with ER positive breast cancers who should be offered endocrine therapies in order to improve clinical outcome. In routine oncological practice ER status is determined by semi-quantitative methods such as immunohistochemistry (IHC) or other immunoassays in which the ER expression level is compared to an empirical threshold[1], [2]. The clinical relevance of gene expression-based ER subtypes as compared to IHC-based determination has not been systematically evaluated. Here we attempt to reduce the frequency of false negative ER status classification using two gene expression approaches and compare these methods to IHC based ER status in terms of predictive and prognostic concordance with clinical outcome. Methodology/Principal Findings: Firstly, ER status was discriminated by fitting the bimodal expression of ESR1 to a mixed Gaussian model. The discriminative power of ESR1 suggested bimodal expression as an efficient way to stratify breast cancer; therefore we identified a set of genes whose expression was both strongly bimodal, mimicking ESR expression status, and highly expressed in breast epithelial cell lines, to derive a 23-gene ER expression signature-based classifier. We assessed our classifiers in seven published breast cancer cohorts by comparing the gene expression-based ER status to IHC-based ER status as a predictor of clinical outcome in both untreated and tamoxifen treated cohorts. In untreated breast cancer cohorts, the 23 gene signature-based ER status provided significantly improved prognostic power compared to IHC-based ER status (P = 0.006). In tamoxifen-treated cohorts, the 23 gene ER expression signature predicted clinical outcome (HR = 2.20, P = 0.00035). These complementary ER signature-based strategies estimated that between 15.1% and 21.8% patients of IHC-based negative ER status would be classified with ER positive breast cancer. Conclusion/Significance: Expression-based ER status classification may complement IHC to minimise false negative ER status classification and optimise patient stratification for endocrine therapies.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiyuan Li & Aron C Eklund & Nicolai Juul & Benjamin Haibe-Kains & Christopher T Workman & Andrea L Richardson & Zoltan Szallasi & Charles Swanton, 2010. "Minimising Immunohistochemical False Negative ER Classification Using a Complementary 23 Gene Expression Signature of ER Status," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0015031
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015031
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015031&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0015031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0015031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.