MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer
Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer
Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer
Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer
Journal Article

Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer

2017
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background Proliferation may predict response to neoadjuvant therapy of breast cancer and is commonly assessed by manual scoring of slides stained by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for Ki-67 similar to ER and PgR. This method carries significant intra- and inter-observer variability. Automatic scoring of Ki-67 with digital image analysis (qIHC) or assessment of MKI67 gene expression with RT-qPCR may improve diagnostic accuracy. Methods Ki-67 IHC visual assessment was compared to the IHC nuclear tool (AperioTM) on core biopsies from a randomized neoadjuvant clinical trial. Expression of ESR1, PGR and MKI67 by RT-qPCR was performed on RNA extracted from the same formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. Concordance between the three methods (vIHC, qIHC and RT-qPCR) was assessed for all 3 markers. The potential of Ki-67 IHC and RT-qPCR to predict pathological complete response (pCR) was evaluated using ROC analysis and non-parametric Mann-Whitney Test. Results Correlation between methods (qIHC versus RT-qPCR) was high for ER and PgR (spearman´s r  = 0.82, p  < 0.0001 and r  = 0.86, p  < 0.0001, respectively) resulting in high levels of concordance using predefined cut-offs. When comparing qIHC of ER and PgR with RT-qPCR of ESR1 and PGR the overall agreement was 96.6 and 91.4%, respectively, while overall agreement of visual IHC with RT-qPCR was slightly lower for ER/ESR1 and PR/PGR (91.2 and 92.9%, respectively). In contrast, only a moderate correlation was observed between qIHC and RT-qPCR continuous data for Ki-67/MKI67 (Spearman’s r  = 0.50, p  = 0.0001). Up to now no predictive cut-off for Ki-67 assessment by IHC has been established to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Setting the desired sensitivity at 100%, specificity for the prediction of pCR (ypT0ypN0) was significantly higher for mRNA than for protein (68.9% vs. 22.2%). Moreover, the proliferation levels in patients achieving a pCR versus not differed significantly using MKI67 RNA expression (Mann-Whitney p  = 0.002), but not with qIHC of Ki-67 (Mann-Whitney p  = 0.097) or vIHC of Ki-67 ( p  = 0.131). Conclusion Digital image analysis can successfully be implemented for assessing ER, PR and Ki-67. IHC for ER and PR reveals high concordance with RT-qPCR. However, RT-qPCR displays a broader dynamic range and higher sensitivity than IHC. Moreover, correlation between Ki-67 qIHC and RT-qPCR is only moderate and RT-qPCR with MammaTyper® outperforms qIHC in predicting pCR. Both methods yield improvements to error-prone manual scoring of Ki-67. However, RT-qPCR was significantly more specific.