This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
PURPOSE: The clinicopathologic importance of a second estrogen receptor (ER), ER-beta, in breast cancers has been intensely studied; however, there is still no real consensus regarding the clinical utility of an ER-beta assay, probably because of the lack of standardized methodology, the presence of several ER-beta isotypes (ER-beta1-5, and so on), and, more importantly, the lack of convincing data on whether the ER-beta status provides clinically useful information over what is already provided by the traditional ER-alpha/progesterone receptor (PR) assay. A large and systematic study is needed to address these important issues. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Archival materials of 442 invasive breast cancers from women treated with adjuvant tamoxifen monotherapy and with a long follow-up period (median, 11.1 years) were subjected to immunohistochemical study using three commercially available anti-ER-beta antibodies that detect ER-beta1-3 (ER-betaN), ER-beta1, and ER-betacx (ER-beta2). RESULTS: Positive staining for ER-betaN or ER-beta1 was associated with significantly better survival. By contrast, ER-betacx status did not influence survival. In multivariate analysis, ER-beta1 status emerged as an independent predictor of recurrence and mortality. ER-beta1 status was significantly associated with survival in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, women. Importantly, ER-beta1 positivity was associated with significantly better survival in patients with ER-alpha-negative/PR-negative or ER-alpha-negative/PR-negative/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (triple-negative) tumors, which are widely believed to be hormone unresponsive, have poor prognosis, and require chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Immunohistochemical examination of ER-beta1 in addition to ER-alpha and PR is clinically important in patients with breast cancer treated with tamoxifen monotherapy. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Honma et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: