Purpose: To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. Methods: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. Results: Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. Recommendations: The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

Purpose. —To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. Methods. —The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. Results. —Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in pre-analytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. Recommendations. —The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

EMBO Press is an editorially independent publishing platform for the development of EMBO scientific publications.

In animals, electric field stimulation of carotid baroreceptors elicits a depressor response through sympathetic inhibition. We tested the hypothesis that the stimulation acutely reduces sympathetic vasomotor tone and blood pressure in patients with drug treatment–resistant arterial hypertension. Furthermore, we tested whether the stimulation impairs the physiological baroreflex regulation. We studied 7 men and 5 women (ages 43 to 69 years) with treatment-resistant arterial hypertension. A bilateral electric baroreflex stimulator at the level of the carotid sinus (Rheos) was implanted ≥1 month before the study. We measured intra-arterial blood pressure, heart rate, muscle sympathetic nerve activity (microneurography), cardiac baroreflex sensitivity (cross-spectral analysis and sequence method), sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity (threshold technique), plasma renin, and norepinephrine concentrations. Measurements were performed under resting conditions, with and without electric baroreflex stimulation, for ≥6 minutes during the same experiment. Intra-arterial blood pressure was 193±9/94±5 mm Hg on medications. Acute electric baroreflex stimulation decreased systolic blood pressure by 32±10 mm Hg (range: +7 to −108 mm Hg; P =0.01). The depressor response was correlated with a muscle sympathetic nerve activity reduction ( r ² =0.42; P <0.05). In responders, muscle sympathetic nerve activity decreased sharply when electric stimulation started. Then, muscle sympathetic nerve activity increased but remained below the baseline level throughout the stimulation period. Heart rate decreased 4.5±1.5 bpm with stimulation ( P <0.05). Plasma renin concentration decreased 20±8% ( P <0.05). Electric field stimulation of carotid sinus baroreflex afferents acutely decreased arterial blood pressure in hypertensive patients, without negative effects on physiological baroreflex regulation. The depressor response was mediated through sympathetic inhibition.

Background: Most patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer are cured by locoregional treatment; however, about 30% relapse. Because traditional histomorphologic and clinical factors fail to identify the high-risk patients who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, other prognostic factors are needed. In a unicenter study, we have found that levels of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) in the primary tumor are predictive of disease recurrence. Thus, we designed the Chemo N₀ prospective randomized multicenter therapy trial to investigate further whether uPA and PAI-1 are such prognostic factors and whether high-risk patients identified by these factors benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. After 4.5 years, we present results of the first interim analysis. Methods: We studied 556 patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer. The median follow-up was 32 months. All patients with low tumor levels of uPA (≤3 ng/mg of protein) and of PAI-1 (≤14 ng/mg of protein) were observed. Patients with high tumor levels of uPA (>3 ng/mg of protein) and/or of PAI-1 (>14 ng/mg of protein) were randomly assigned to combination chemotherapy or subjected to observation only. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: A total of 241 patients had low levels of uPA and PAI-1, and 315 had elevated levels of uPA and/or PAI-1. The estimated 3-year recurrence rate for patients with low tumor levels of uPA and PAI-1 (low-risk group) was 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5% to 10.8%). This rate for patients with high tumor levels of uPA and/or PAI-1 (high-risk group) was 14.7% (95% CI = 8.5% to 20.9%) (P = .006). First interim analysis suggests that high-risk patients in the chemotherapy group benefit, with a 43.8% lower estimated probability of disease recurrence at 3 years than high-risk patients in the observation group (intention-to-treat analysis: relative risk = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.25 to 1.28), but further follow-up is needed for confirmation. Conclusions: Using uPA and PAI-1, we have been able to classify about half of the patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer as low risk, for whom adjuvant chemotherapy may be avoided, and half as high risk, who appear to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.