Estrogen receptor analyses. Correlation of biochemical and immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antireceptor antibodies

Attempts at histochemical localization of estrogen receptor with anti-steroid antibody or some fluoresceinated estrogens have given unacceptable sensitivities and specificities when compared with biochemical methods or clinical response. In the present study a monoclonal antibody against estrogen re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976) Vol. 109; no. 8; p. 716
Main Authors: McCarty, Jr, K S, Miller, L S, Cox, E B, Konrath, J, McCarty, Sr, K S
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 01-08-1985
Subjects:
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Attempts at histochemical localization of estrogen receptor with anti-steroid antibody or some fluoresceinated estrogens have given unacceptable sensitivities and specificities when compared with biochemical methods or clinical response. In the present study a monoclonal antibody against estrogen receptor (H222 Sp gamma) was used on cryostat sections of freshly frozen breast tumors with a peroxidase-antiperoxidase immunoperoxidase technique. Biochemical receptor analyses were by dextran-coated charcoal analyses. Tumors from three separate cohorts of patients were studied as follows: population A, 62 primary breast cancers from 1983; population B, 72 primary lesions stored from 1976 to 1983; and population C, 23 patients with metastases, treated with hormonal therapy. Distinct staining was seen in the cell nucleus. A semiquantitative relationship was seen between histochemical score assessment of staining and biochemical assay in each cohort. The sensitivity and specificity using a threshold of 75 for the histochemical score and more than 20 femtomoles/mg of protein for dextran-coated charcoal analyses were as follows: population A, specificity, 89%, and sensitivity, 95%; population B, specificity, 94%, and sensitivity 88%; and for population C, the comparison was with objective clinical response yielding specificity, 89%, and sensitivity, 93%.
ISSN:0003-9985