METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional study using 100 samples of archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue blocks of invasive ductal carcinoma and stained them with immunohistochemistry for PITX2, ER, PR and HER2. All HER2 with scoring of 2+ were confirmed with chromogenic in-situ hybridization (CISH).
RESULTS: PITX2 protein was expressed in 53% of invasive ductal carcinoma and lack of PITX2 expression in 47%. Univariate analysis revealed a significant association between PITX2 expression with PR (p=0.001), ER (p=0.006), gland formation (p=0.044) and marginal association with molecular subtypes of breast carcinoma (p=0.051). Combined ER and PR expression with PITX2 was also significantly associated (p=0.003) especially in double positive cases. Multivariate analysis showed the most significant association between PITX2 and PR (RR 4.105, 95% CI 1.765-9.547, p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: PITX2 is another potential prognostic marker in breast carcinoma adding significant information to established prognostic factors of ER and PR. The expression of PITX2 together with PR may carry a very good prognosis.
METHODS: Clinicopathological data were retrieved from the archived formal pathology reports for surgical specimens diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinoma, NOS. Microvessels were immunohistochemically stained with anti-CD34 antibody and quantified as microvessel density.
RESULTS: At least 50% of 94 cases of invasive breast ductal carcinoma in the study were advanced stage. The majority had poor prognosis factors such as tumor size larger than 50mm (48.9%), positive lymph node metastasis (60.6%), and tumor grade III (52.1%). Higher percentages of estrogen and progesterone receptor negative cases were recorded (46.8% and 46.8% respectively). Her-2 overexpression cases and triple negative breast cancers constituted 24.5% and 22.3% respectively. Significantly higher microvessel density was observed in the younger patient age group (p=0.012). There were no significant associations between microvessel density and other clinicopathological factors (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Majority of the breast cancer patients of this institution had advanced stage disease with poorer prognostic factors as compared to other local and western studies. Breast cancer in younger patients might be more proangiogenic.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the expression of DDR1 and DVL1 and their association with histological type, grading and hormonal status of IDC and ILC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross sectional study was conducted on IDC and ILC breast tumours. Tumours were immunohistochemically stained for (DDR1) and (DVL1) as well as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and C-erbB2 receptor. Demographic data including age and ethnicity were obtained from patient records.
RESULTS: A total of 51 cases (30 IDCs and 21 ILCs) were assessed. DDR1 and DVL1 expression was not significantly associated with histological type (p=0.57 and p=0.66 respectively). There was no association between DDR1 and DVL1 expression and tumour grade (p=0.32 and p=1.00 respectively), ER (p=0.62 and 0.50 respectively), PR (p=0.38 and p=0.63 respectively) and C-erbB2 expression (p=0.19 and p=0.33 respectively) in IDC. There was no association between DDR1 and DVL1 expression and tumour grade (p=0.52 and p=0.33 respectively), ER (p=0.06 and p=0.76 respectively), PR (p=0.61 and p=0.43 respectively) and C-erbB2 expression (p=0.58 and p=0.76 respectively) in ILC.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that DDR1 and DVL1 are present in both IDC and ILC regardless of the tumour differentiation. More studies are needed to assess the potential of these two proteins in distinguishing IDC from ILC in breast tumours.