Clinico-pathological co-relation using various immuno-histochemistry markers likeER, PR, HER-2 NEU, CK5/6, EGFR, KI-67 in carcinoma breast

Gyanendra S Mittal,Suraj Manjunath,B Niranjan Naik,Sanjay Deb
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jdpo.2020.006
2020-02-15
IP Journal of Diagnostic Pathology and Oncology
Abstract:Introduction: In India, for the year 2012, 144,937 women were newly detected with breast cancer and 70,218 women died of it. For every 2 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer, one lady is dying of it. The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical parameters and pathological findings including various Immuno-histochemistry (IHC) markers like ER, PR, HER-2 NEU, CK5/6, EGFR, Ki-67 in cases of carcinoma breast and classify them into molecular classification based on IHC markers and try to correlate them clinically. Materials and Methods: This prospective, observational study was carried out in 56 patients with early carcinoma breast (stage-I and stage-II) and IHC evaluation for various markers was done. Data was analysed by using Molecular Classification, divide them into estrogen positive (luminal HER-2, luminal A and luminal B) and estrogen negative (Triple negative or basal cell type, HER-2Neu type and normal breast like phenotype) subtypes. We had correlated this data with parameters like age of the patient, clinical and pathological staging of the breast carcinoma, presence or absence of nodes and presence or absence of other IHC parameters. Results: We used ANOVA-F test to catagories variables and measure the test of significance. On IHC in Her-2 neu equivocal cases (patients who had two “++” positive points), we performed FISH test. Out of these 17 equivocal cases, only 3 were positive, 10 were negative and 4 patients did not underwent this test due to several reasons. Finally, Ki-67 value is significantly high in triple negative and Luminal-B patients. NPI is also having low ‘P’value, although not reaching the level of significance. Conclusion: Types of breast carcinoma, which look histologically similar behaves differently in their clinical presentation and in prognosis.In our study only Ki-67 was correlated with poor prognostic subtype of molecular classification but no any poor risk of clinical or histological parameter was correlated significantly with bad prognostic subtype of molecular classification as Luminal-B or triple negative type. We can say that this molecular classification is different in terms of prognosis in patients with similar looking clinical and histological parameters.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?