4.7 Article

Cytoplasmic Estrogen Receptor in Breast Cancer

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 118-126

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1236

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute
  2. NIH [R33 CA 106709]
  3. US Army CDMRP
  4. American Society of Clinical Oncology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: In addition to genomic signaling, it is accepted that estrogen receptor-alpha (ER alpha) has nonnuclear signaling functions, which correlate with tamoxifen resistance in preclinical models. However, evidence for cytoplasmic ER localization in human breast tumors is less established. We sought to determine the presence and implications of nonnuclear ER in clinical specimens. Experimental Design: A panel of ER alpha-specific antibodies (SP1, MC20, F10, 60c, and 1D5) was validated by Western blot and quantitative immunofluorescent (QIF) analysis of cell lines and patient controls. Then eight retrospective cohorts collected on tissue microarrays were assessed for cytoplasmic ER. Four cohorts were from Yale (YTMA 49, 107, 130, and 128) and four others (NCI YTMA 99, South Swedish Breast Cancer Group SBII, NSABP B14, and a Vietnamese Cohort) from other sites around the world. Results: Four of the antibodies specifically recognized ER by Western and QIF analysis, showed linear increases in amounts of ER in cell line series with progressively increasing ER, and the antibodies were reproducible on YTMA 49 with Pearson correlations (r(2) values) ranging from 0.87 to 0.94. One antibody with striking cytoplasmic staining (MC20) failed validation. We found evidence for specific cytoplasmic staining with the other four antibodies across eight cohorts. The average incidence was 1.5%, ranging from 0 to 3.2%. Conclusions: Our data show ER alpha is present in the cytoplasm in a number of cases using multiple antibodies while reinforcing the importance of antibody validation. In nearly 3,200 cases, cytoplasmic ER is present at very low incidence, suggesting its measurement is unlikely to be of routine clinical value. Clin Cancer Res; 18(1); 118-26. (C) 2011 AACR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available