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

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.

[1]  D. Allred Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada. , 2008, The oncologist.

[2]  Lajos Pusztai,et al.  Determination of oestrogen-receptor status and ERBB2 status of breast carcinoma: a gene-expression profiling study. , 2007, The Lancet. Oncology.

[3]  S. Badve,et al.  Oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: towards bridging histopathological and molecular classifications , 2008, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[4]  W. Fraser Symmans,et al.  Standardizing Slide-Based Assays in Breast Cancer: Hormone Receptors, HER2, and Sentinel Lymph Nodes , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[5]  P. Neven,et al.  Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1-98. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Microarray-Based Determination of Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER2 Receptor Status in Breast Cancer , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[7]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer , 2002, Nature.

[8]  Rameen Beroukhim,et al.  Molecular characterization of the tumor microenvironment in breast cancer. , 2004, Cancer cell.

[9]  Zoltan Szallasi,et al.  Optimization of the BLASTN substitution matrix for prediction of non-specific DNA microarray hybridization , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[10]  Gianluca Bontempi,et al.  Biological Processes Associated with Breast Cancer Clinical Outcome Depend on the Molecular Subtypes , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[11]  Xuesong Lu,et al.  Predicting features of breast cancer with gene expression patterns , 2008, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[12]  Xiao-Jun Ma,et al.  Gene expression profiling of the tumor microenvironment during breast cancer progression , 2009, Breast Cancer Research.

[13]  C. Li,et al.  Model-based analysis of oligonucleotide arrays: expression index computation and outlier detection. , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  M. Clarke,et al.  WITHDRAWN: Tamoxifen for early breast cancer. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[15]  Tanja Cufer,et al.  The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients that benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy , 2009, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[16]  L. T. DeCarlo On the meaning and use of kurtosis. , 1997 .

[17]  R. Irizarry,et al.  A gene expression bar code for microarray data , 2007, Nature Methods.

[18]  Carsten O. Peterson,et al.  Estrogen receptor status in breast cancer is associated with remarkably distinct gene expression patterns. , 2001, Cancer research.

[19]  W. Gerald,et al.  An estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer subset characterized by a hormonally regulated transcriptional program and response to androgen , 2006, Oncogene.

[20]  A. Ashworth,et al.  Breast cancer molecular profiling with single sample predictors: a retrospective analysis. , 2010, The Lancet. Oncology.

[21]  L. Beex,et al.  Increased use of immunohistochemistry for oestrogen receptor measurement in mammary carcinoma: the need for quality assurance. , 1998, European journal of cancer.

[22]  O. Podhajcer,et al.  Determination of DNA synthesis, estrogen receptors, and carcinoembryonic antigen in isolated cellular subpopulations of human breast cancer , 1986, Cancer.

[23]  S. Hilsenbeck,et al.  Time-dependence of hazard ratios for prognostic factors in primary breast cancer , 2004, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[24]  Carlos Caldas,et al.  A robust classifier of high predictive value to identify good prognosis patients in ER-negative breast cancer , 2008, Breast Cancer Research.

[25]  Joshy George,et al.  Genetic reclassification of histologic grade delineates new clinical subtypes of breast cancer. , 2006, Cancer research.

[26]  C. Bryce,et al.  Tamoxifen in early breast cancer , 1998, The Lancet.

[27]  J. Foekens,et al.  Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer , 2005, The Lancet.

[28]  J. Ross,et al.  Pharmacogenomic predictor of sensitivity to preoperative chemotherapy with paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  Kevin R. Coombes,et al.  The Bimodality Index: A Criterion for Discovering and Ranking Bimodal Signatures from Cancer Gene Expression Profiling Data , 2009, Cancer informatics.

[30]  Weiwei Shi,et al.  Bimodal gene expression patterns in breast cancer , 2010, BMC Genomics.

[31]  Adrian V. Lee,et al.  Estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer: association with growth factor receptor expression and tamoxifen resistance. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[32]  C. Sotiriou,et al.  Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures , 2007, Breast Cancer Research.

[33]  A. Gown Current issues in ER and HER2 testing by IHC in breast cancer , 2008, Modern Pathology.

[34]  Franck Molina,et al.  A Gene Expression Signature that Can Predict the Recurrence of Tamoxifen-Treated Primary Breast Cancer , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[35]  Zoltan Szallasi,et al.  Amplification of LAPTM4B and YWHAZ contributes to chemotherapy resistance and recurrence of breast cancer , 2010, Nature Medicine.

[36]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[37]  M. Cronin,et al.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[38]  Leming Shi,et al.  Effect of training-sample size and classification difficulty on the accuracy of genomic predictors , 2010, Breast Cancer Research.

[39]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2000, Nature.