Interobserver agreement among pathologists for semiquantitative hormone receptor scoring in breast carcinoma.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines recommend reporting of hormone receptor test results in a semiquantitative manner. This study used 74 resected estrogen receptor (ER)-positive invasive breast cancers to determine reproducibility of semiquantitative scoring of hormone receptors using the H-score method. Four pathologists independently scored each slide. Agreement among observers was analyzed via Fleiss κ statistics on ER and progesterone receptor (PR) categorical scores. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to estimate the interobserver agreement for ER and PR H-scores on a continuous scale (0-300). There was 100% agreement for categorical ER results (κ = 1) and 97% agreement (κ = 0.823, P < .001) for categorical PR results. For quantitative H-scores, ICC agreement was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.90) for ER and 0.87 (95% CI = 0.82-0.92) for PR. Because the H-score provides a continuous measure of tumor hormone receptor content, we suggest universal adoption of this method.

[1]  D. Dabbs,et al.  Semi-quantitative immunohistochemical assay versus oncotype DX® qRT-PCR assay for estrogen and progesterone receptors: an independent quality assurance study , 2012, Modern Pathology.

[2]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  A. Nassar,et al.  A New Immunohistochemical ER/PR Image Analysis System: A Multisite Performance Study , 2011, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[4]  D. Dabbs,et al.  Semiquantitative hormone receptor level influences response to trastuzumab-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[5]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. , 2010, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[6]  D. Dabbs,et al.  Immunohistochemical surrogate markers of breast cancer molecular classes predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy , 2010, Cancer.

[7]  Richard Berendt,et al.  Implementation of a Canadian External Quality Assurance Program for Breast Cancer Biomarkers: An Initiative of Canadian Quality Control in Immunohistochemistry (cIQc) and Canadian Association of Pathologists (CAP) National Standards Committee/Immunohistochemistry , 2009, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[8]  Donald A Berry,et al.  NCCN Task Force Report: Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry. , 2009, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[9]  Rohit Bhargava,et al.  Histopathologic variables predict Oncotype DX™ Recurrence Score , 2008, Modern Pathology.

[10]  K. Hede.  Breast cancer testing scandal shines spotlight on black box of clinical laboratory testing. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Edith A Perez,et al.  Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  Karen A Gelmon,et al.  Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  R. Gelber,et al.  Re-evaluating adjuvant breast cancer trials: assessing hormone receptor status by immunohistochemical versus extraction assays. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  M. Buchanan,et al.  Reliance on hormone receptor assays of surgical specimens may compromise outcome in patients with breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  N. Sneige,et al.  Estrogen Receptor Analysis for Breast Cancer: Current Issues and Keys to Increasing Testing Accuracy , 2005, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[16]  D. Allred,et al.  Progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry and clinical outcome in breast cancer: a validation study , 2004, Modern Pathology.

[17]  J. Peterse,et al.  Consistency of staining and reporting of oestrogen receptor immunocytochemistry within the European Union—an inter-laboratory study , 2004, Virchows Archiv.

[18]  H. Friess,et al.  Oligoclonal T-cell populations in an inflammatory pseudotumor of the pancreas possibly related to autoimmune pancreatitis: an immunohistochemical and molecular analysis , 2004, Virchows Archiv.

[19]  C Blake Gilks,et al.  Assessment of interlaboratory variation in the immunohistochemical determination of estrogen receptor status using a breast cancer tissue microarray. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[20]  D. Barnes,et al.  Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems , 2000, Journal of clinical pathology.

[21]  C K Osborne,et al.  Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials , 1998, The Lancet.

[23]  D. Allred,et al.  Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. , 1998, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[24]  E B Cox,et al.  Estrogen receptor analyses. Correlation of biochemical and immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antireceptor antibodies. , 1985, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[25]  A. J. Conger.  Integration and generalization of kappas for multiple raters. , 1980 .

[26]  Osborne Ck,et al.  Therapy for cancer of the breast. Current status of steroid hormone receptors. , 1979 .

[27]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[29]  J. Bartko.  The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of Reliability , 1966, Psychological reports.

[30]  J. Flickinger,et al.  Prevalence, morphologic features and proliferation indices of breast carcinoma molecular classes using immunohistochemical surrogate markers. , 2009, International journal of clinical and experimental pathology.

[31]  S. Schnitt,et al.  Bimodal frequency distribution of estrogen receptor immunohistochemical staining results in breast cancer: an analysis of 825 cases. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[32]  K. McGraw,et al.  Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. , 1996 .

[33]  W. McGuire,et al.  Therapy for cancer of the breast. Current status of steroid hormone receptors. , 1979, The Western journal of medicine.

[34]  J. Fleiss.  Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .