PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU 2023; 13(04): 575-580
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1762580
Original Article

Comparison of Estrogen Receptor Status and Ki-67 Index in Core Needle Biopsy and Resected Specimen of Breast Carcinoma

Geoffrey Sundar E. 
1   Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College and Hospital, Karakonam, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
,
Kishan Prasad HL
2   Department of Pathology, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, NITTE (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Jayaprakash Shetty K.
2   Department of Pathology, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, NITTE (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Chandrika Rao 
2   Department of Pathology, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, NITTE (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Apoorva K. 
2   Department of Pathology, K. S. Hegde Medical Academy, NITTE (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and Objectives The status of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki-67 expression in core needle biopsy and excision specimens has concurrent results, but many show discordance. However, only a few studies on the subject are available in India. Therefore, this study aims to compare the ER and Ki-67 expression status in core needle biopsy and excision specimens of breast carcinoma.

Materials and Methods In this cross-sectional analytical study, 50 breast carcinoma cases were histopathologically examined for ER and Ki-67 expression in both core needle biopsy and excision specimen. The interpreter was blinded for the evaluation of ER and Ki-67 expression index and the data obtained were analyzed using SPSS version 27.

Results The average age of the participants was 50 years and breast lump was the most common presenting complaint in all the cases. The concordance rate of histological typing between core needle biopsy and excision specimens was 96%, and the majority were invasive ductal carcinoma (60%) and not otherwise specified (48%) having Nottingham histologic grade 3 (46%). The concordance rate between core needle biopsy and excision specimen for ER and Ki-67 expression was 86% (n = 43) and 54% (n = 27), respectively. Most of the cases were found to be luminal A type (38%). Additionally, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ER between core needle biopsy and excision specimen were 78.79, 100, 100, and 70.83%, respectively; however, these were 44, 64, 55, and 53.33%, respectively, for Ki-67.

Conclusion Although the concordance of the ER status between core needle biopsy and excision specimen was substantial, the discordance rate of Ki-67 was found to be high. Hence, relying solely on core needle biopsy for critical decision-making is inadvisable; however, core needle biopsy can be used as an initial procedure to examine histology and receptor status, Therefore, it is better to reconsider performing immunohistochemistry for the excision specimen, more importantly in ER-negative cases, to benefit the patient with targeted therapy.

Keywords

breast carcinoma - core needle biopsy - estrogen receptor - excision specimen - immunohistochemistry - Ki-67

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. April 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Feng Y, Spezia M, Huang S, Yuan C, Zeng Z, Zhang L. et al. Breast cancer development and progression: Risk factors, cancer stem cells, signaling pathways, genomics, and molecular pathogenesis. Genes Dis 2018; 5 (02) 77-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dabbs DJ. ed. Diagnostic Immunohistochemistry: Theranostic and Genomic Applications. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2014: 1-38
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Dai X, Xiang L, Li T, Bai Z. Cancer Hallmarks, Biomarkers and Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes. J Cancer 2016; 7 (10) 1281-1294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Miller I, Min M, Yang C, Tian C, Gookin S, Carter D. et al. Ki67 is a Graded Rather than a Binary Marker of Proliferation versus Quiescence. Cell Rep 2018; 24 (05) 1105-1112.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Saha A. FNAC Versus Core Needle Biopsy: A Comparative Study in Evaluation of Palpable Breast Lump. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 342-353
    Google Scholar
  • 6 You K, Park S, Ryu JM, Kim I, Lee SK, Yu J. et al. Comparison of Core Needle Biopsy and Surgical Specimens in Determining Intrinsic Biological Subtypes of Breast Cancer with Immunohistochemistry. J Breast Cancer 2017; 20 (03) 297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chen X, Sun L, Mao Y, Zhu S, Wu J, Huang O. et al. Preoperative core needle biopsy is accurate in determining molecular subtypes in invasive breast cancer. BMC Cancer 31:185
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Gupta MK, Gupta B, Kumar K. Comparative study of core needle biopsy with excisional biopsy: To determine diagnostic accuracy & concordance with er/pr/her-2/neu status. Indian J Pathol Oncol 2016; 3 (04) 576
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Asogan A, Hong G, Arni PrabhakaranS. Concordance between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in breast cancer. Singapore Med J 2017; 58 (03) 145-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Greer LT, Rosman M, Mylander WC, Hooke J, Kovatich A, Sawyer K. et al. Does Breast Tumor Heterogeneity Necessitate Further Immunohistochemical Staining on Surgical Specimens?. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 216 (02) 239-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Isikhuemen ME, Eliboh MO, Eni EU, Ekwedigwe KC, Sunday-Adeoye I. Outcome of open excisional breast biopsies in Abakaliki, South-East Nigeria. Pan Afr Med J [Internet] 2018;31:185
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Clark BZ, Onisko A, Assylbekova B, Li X, Bhargava R, Dabbs DJ. Breast cancer global tumor biomarkers: a quality assurance study of intratumoral heterogeneity. Mod Pathol 2019; Mar; 32 (03) 354-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zhu S, Wu J, Huang O, He J, Zhu L, Li Y. et al. Clinicopathological Features and Disease Outcome in Breast Cancer Patients with Hormonal Receptor Discordance between Core Needle Biopsy and Following Surgical Sample. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26 (09) 2779-2786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chen X, Sun L, Mao Y, Zhu S, Wu J, Huang O. et al. Preoperative core needle biopsy is accurate in determining molecular subtypes in invasive breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2013 13. 390
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Arnedos M, Nerurkar A, Osin P, A'Hern R, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Discordance between core needle biopsy (CNB) and excisional biopsy (EB) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status in early breast cancer (EBC). Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (12) 1948-1952
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pervin M, Nath H, Bahar M, Alam A, Bhowmik J. Study on Clinical Presentation of Breast Carcinoma of 50 Cases. Chattagram Maa-O-Shishu Hosp Med Coll J 2014; 13 (02) DOI: 10.3329/cmoshmcj.v13i2.21048.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Vaibhaw K, Rathi S. Assessment of Incidence of Various Types of Breast Cancer According to Age. Int J Med Res Prof 2018; 4 (02) 140-143
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Al-Amri A. Clinical presentation and causes of the delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in patients with pregnancy associated breast cancer. J Fam Community Med 2015; 22 (02) 96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Newton P. The presentation and management of female breast symptoms in general practice in Sheffield. Fam Pract 1999; 16 (04) 360-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Robertson S, Rönnlund C, de Boniface J, Hartman J. Re-testing of predictive biomarkers on surgical breast cancer specimens is clinically relevant. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 174 (03) 795-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 O'Leary R. Agreement between preoperative core needle biopsy and postoperative invasive breast cancer histopathology is not dependent on the amount of clinical material obtained. J Clin Pathol 2004; 57 (02) 193-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ough M, Velasco J, Hieken TJ. A comparative analysis of core needle biopsy and final excision for breast cancer: histology and marker expression. Am J Surg 2011; 201 (05) 692-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Meattini I, Bicchierai G, Saieva C, De Benedetto D, Desideri I, Becherini C. et al. Impact of molecular subtypes classification concordance between preoperative core needle biopsy and surgical specimen on early breast cancer management: Single-institution experience and review of published literature. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017; 43 (04) 642-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ricci MD, Calvano FilhoCMC, Oliveira FilhoHR, de, Filassi JR, Pinotti JA, Baracat EC. Analysis of the concordance rates between core needle biopsy and surgical excision in patients with breast cancer. Rev Assoc Medica Bras 1992 2012; 58 (05) 532-536
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Ahn S, Lee J, Cho M-S, Park S, Sung SH. Evaluation of Ki-67 Index in Core Needle Biopsies and Matched Breast Cancer Surgical Specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2018; 142 (03) 364-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar