Abstract

BackgroundExpression 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 FindingsFirstly, 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/SignificanceExpression-based ER status classification may complement IHC to minimise false negative ER status classification and optimise patient stratification for endocrine therapies.

Highlights

  • Breast cancer is classified into clinically relevant subtypes based on the expression of the oestrogen receptor (ER), classifying tumours into ER positive and ER negative cases

  • In nine datasets containing both IHC-based ER positive and ER negative tumours, we observed a bimodal distribution of ESR1 expression, with coefficients of bimodality ranging from 0.619 to 0.776, whereas in the data set with only IHC ER negative tumours (JBI2) there was no visible bimodal distribution of ESR1

  • Concordance between gene expression based ER classification and IHC based ER status Using these approaches, we have developed two gene expression-based classifiers for ER status, the first was derived from the expression of ESR1 and the second was derived from a set of 23 genes expressed within epithelial cells that were selected based on their bimodal distribution

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Breast cancer is classified into clinically relevant subtypes based on the expression of the oestrogen receptor (ER), classifying tumours into ER positive and ER negative cases. Aspects of the staining protocols such as the length of antigen retrieval and tissue fixation differ from centre to centre resulting in a significant level of variation in ER status classification[4]; thirdly, the ER status derived from immunostaining approaches remains a subjective judgement[5]; the relationship between the empirical threshold of ER positivity and the true underlying biological function of the receptor, which is likely to determine endocrine therapy sensitivity, is poorly elucidated[4] These factors together may result in a significant level of discordance of ER status classification with a major impact on treatment choice and clinical outcome in breast cancer. 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

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.