Comparing the clinical, histopathological and myoepithelial features of estrogen receptor positive and negative mammary carcinomas.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between hormone-receptor status and histological parameters, considering that some estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast carcinoma are suggested to be of myoepithelial origin or differentiation; and to examine the presence of significant difference by myoepithelial markers and define their morphologies. METHODS For this research, 30 estrogen receptor-negative and 31 estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinomas diagnosed at the Pathology Department, Istanbul Training and Education Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, between February 2003 and October 2004 were considered and compared clinically, microscopically and immunohistochemically considering myoepithelial markers using SMA, S100, keratin14. RESULTS We found a higher amount of grade 3 frequency pushing margins, solid islets, and presence of central necrosis in the estrogen receptor-negative group than in the positive group (p<0.001 and p<0.05). Six estrogen-negative and 2 estrogen-positive cases were found positive for myoepithelial markers; a difference which is non-significant (p=0.147). The presence of solid islets, fusiform, and clear cells was detected higher in myoepithelial positive tumors than in negative group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION For daily pathologic applications, some morphological properties of a breast carcinoma can give clues about ER and myoepithelial features. In estrogen receptor-negative tumors, there is a remarkable myoepithelial marker positivity. Studies involving broader series and different myoepithelial markers could give more reliable results.

[1]  C. Gomez-Fernandez,et al.  Immunohistochemistry of estrogen and progesterone receptors reconsidered: experience with 5,993 breast cancers. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[2]  Ian O Ellis,et al.  Estrogen receptor-negative breast carcinomas: a review of morphology and immunophenotypical analysis , 2005, Modern Pathology.

[3]  G Leclercq,et al.  Stable 'portrait' of breast tumors during progression: data from biology, pathology and genetics. , 2004, Endocrine-related cancer.

[4]  J. Coyne,et al.  High‐grade carcinomas of the breast showing patterns of mixed ductal and myoepithelial differentiation (including myoepithelial cell‐rich carcinoma of the breast) , 2004, Histopathology.

[5]  S. Shousha,et al.  Myoepithelial markers are expressed in at least 29% of oestrogen receptor negative invasive breast carcinoma , 2004, Modern Pathology.

[6]  K. Cooper,et al.  Immunostaining patterns of myoepithelial cells in breast lesions: a comparison of CD10 and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[7]  R. A’Hern,et al.  Clinical presentation and long-term outcome of pure myoepithelial carcinoma of the breast. , 2004, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[8]  S. Lakhani,et al.  Distribution and significance of 14‐3‐3σ, a novel myoepithelial marker, in normal, benign, and malignant breast tissue , 2004, The Journal of pathology.

[9]  O. El-Zammar,et al.  Immunoreactivity of ductal cells with putative myoepithelial markers: a potential pitfall in breast carcinoma. , 2003, Annals of diagnostic pathology.

[10]  R. Dickson,et al.  Ultrastructure of the putative stem cell niche in rat mammary epithelium. , 2003, Tissue & cell.

[11]  T. Graubert,et al.  Sca-1(pos) cells in the mouse mammary gland represent an enriched progenitor cell population. , 2002, Developmental biology.

[12]  Mina J Bissell,et al.  Isolation, immortalization, and characterization of a human breast epithelial cell line with stem cell properties. , 2002, Genes & development.

[13]  L. Hennighausen,et al.  An adjunct mammary epithelial cell population in parous females: its role in functional adaptation and tissue renewal. , 2002, Development.

[14]  S. Lakhani,et al.  Comparative Genomic Hybridization Analysis of Myoepithelial Carcinoma of the Breast , 2000, Laboratory Investigation.

[15]  M. Stratton,et al.  Genetic alterations in ‘normal’ luminal and myoepithelial cells of the breast , 1999, The Journal of pathology.

[16]  M. O'hare,et al.  Differentiation of Separated Mouse Mammary Luminal Epithelial and Myoepithelial Cells Cultured on EHS Matrix Analyzed by Indirect Immunofluorescence of Cytoskeletal Antigens , 1999, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[17]  J. Sloane,et al.  Estrogen receptor-positive proliferating cells in the normal and precancerous breast. , 1999, The American journal of pathology.

[18]  R. Nayar,et al.  Immunoreactivity of ductal cells with putative myoepithelial markers: A potential pitfall in breast carcinoma. , 1999, Annals of diagnostic pathology.

[19]  M. Bissell,et al.  Human mammary luminal epithelial cells contain progenitors to myoepithelial cells. , 1999, Developmental biology.

[20]  G. Smith,et al.  An entire functional mammary gland may comprise the progeny from a single cell. , 1998, Development.

[21]  V. Eusebi,et al.  Carcinomas of the breast showing myoepithelial cell differentiation , 1998, Virchows Archiv.

[22]  V. Eusebi,et al.  Poorly differentiated myoepithelial cell rich carcinoma of the breast , 1997, Histopathology.