• 1
    DeSombre ER, Thorpe SM, Rose C, et al. Prognostic usefullness of estrogen receptor immunocytochemical assays for human breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1986; 46: 42564264.
  • 2
    Andersen J, Poulsen HS. Immunohistochemical estrogen-receptor determination in paraffin-embedded tissue: prediction of response to hormonal treatment in advanced breast cancer. Cancer. 1989; 64: 19011908.
  • 3
    Helle M, Helin M, Isola J, Helin H. Immunohistochemical versus biochemical estrogen-receptor and progesterone receptor-analysis; correlation of with histological parameters. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1989; 115: 361365.
  • 4
    Kinsel LB, Szabo E, Greene GL, Konrath J, Leight GS, McCarty KS. Immunocytochemical analysis of estrogen receptors as a predictor of prognosis in breast cancer patients: comparison with quantitative biochemical methods. Cancer Res. 1989; 49: 10521056.
  • 5
    Andersen J, Thorpe SM, King WJ, et al. The prognostic value of immunohistochemical estrogen receptor analysis in paraffin-embedded and frozen sections versus that of steroid-binding assays. Eur J Cancer. 1990; 26: 442449.
  • 6
    Pertschuk KP, Kim DS, Nayer K, et al. Immunohistochemical estrogen and progestin receptor assays in breast cancer with monoclonal antibodies. Cancer. 1990; 66: 16631670.
  • 7
    Battifora H, Mehta P, Ahn C, Esteban JM. Estrogen receptor immunohistochemical assay in paraffin-embedded tissue: a better gold standard? Appl Immunohistochem. 1993; 1: 3945.
  • 8
    Esteban JM, Ahn C, Mehta P, Battifora H. Biologic significance of quantitative estrogen receptor immunohistochemical assay by image analysis in breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994; 102: 158162.
  • 9
    Veronese SM, Barbareschi M, Morelli L, et al. Predictive value of ER1D5 antibody immunostaining in breast cancer: a paraffin-based retrospective study of 257 cases. Appl Immunohistochem. 1995; 3: 8590.
  • 10
    deMascarel I, Soubeyran I, MacGrogan G, et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of estrogen receptors in 983 breast carcinomas: concordance with biochemical assay and prognostic significance. Appl Immunohistochem. 1995; 3: 222231.
  • 11
    Pertschuk LP, Feldman JG, Kim YD, et al. Estrogen receptor immunocytochemistry in paraffin embedded tissues with ER1D5 predicts breast cancer endocrine response more accurately than H222Sp in frozen sections or cytosol-based ligand-binding assays. Cancer. 1996; 77: 25142519.
  • 12
    Barnes DM, Harris WH, Smith P, Millis RR, Rubens RD. Immunohistochemical determination of oestrogen receptor: comparison of different methods of assessment of staining and correlation with clinical outcome of breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 1996; 74: 14451451.
  • 13
    MacGrogan G, Durand MM, Bonichon F, Trojani M, deMascarel I, Coindre JM. Primary chemotherapy in breast invasive carcinoma: predictive value of the immunohistochemical detection of hormonal receptors p53, c-erbB-2, MiBl, pS2, and GST. Br J Cancer. 1996; 74: 14581465.
  • 14
    Ferno M, Andersson C, Fallenius G, Idva I. Oestrogen receptor analysis of paraffin sections and cytosol samples of primary breast cancer in relation to outcome after adjuvant tamoxifen treatment. Acta Oncol. 1996; 35: 1722.
  • 15
    Alberts SR, Ingle JN, Roche PR, et al. Comparison of estrogen receptor determinations by a biochemical ligand-binding assay and immunohistochemical staining with monoclonal antibody 1D5 in females with lymph node positive breast carcinoma entered on two prospective clinical trials. Cancer. 1996; 78: 764772.
  • 16
    Molino A, Micciolo R, Turazza M, et al. Prognostic significance of estrogen receptors in 405 primary breast cancers: a comparison of immunohistochemical and biochemical methods. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997; 45: 241249.
  • 17
    Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 1998; 11: 155168.
  • 18
    Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 14741481.
  • 19
    Elledge RM, Green LS, Pugh R, et al. Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) by ligand-binding assay compared with ER, PgR, and pS2, by immunohistochemistry in predicting response to tamoxifen in metastatic breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Int J Cancer. 2000; 89: 111117.
  • 20
    Rhodes A, Jasani, B, Bobrow LG, Miller KD. Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of estrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems. J Clin Pathol. 2000; 53: 125130.
  • 21
    Rhodes A, Jasani B, Balaton AJ, et al. Documentation of poor reliability and identification of insufficient microwave antigen retrieval time as a major contributory element of unreliable assays. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 115: 4458.
  • 22
    Wishart GC, Gaston M, Poultsidis AA, Purushotam AD. Hormone receptor status in primary breast cancer—time for a consensus? Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38: 12011203.
  • 23
    Lambkin HA, Dunne P, McCarthy PM. Standardization of estrogen-receptor analysis by immunohistochemistry: an assessment of interlaboratory performance in Ireland. Appl Immunohistochem. 1998; 6: 103107.
  • 24
    Layfield LJ, Gupta D, Mooney EE. Assessment of tissue estrogen and progesterone levels: a survey of current practice, techniques, and quantitation methods. Breast J. 2000; 6: 189196.
  • 25
    National Institutes of Health. Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. NIH consensus statement. 2000; 17: 135.
  • 26
    The American Heritage Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992.
  • 27
    Fisher B, Redmond C, Brown A, et al. Treatment of primary breast cancer with chemotherapy and tamoxifen. N Engl J Med. 1981; 305: 16.
  • 28
    LeBlanc M, Crowley J. Relative risk trees for censored survival data. Biometrics. 1992; 48: 411425.
  • 29
    Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ. Classification and regression trees. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1983.
  • 30
    Freedman GM, Hanlon BL, Fowble BL, Anderson PR, Nicoloau N. Recursive partitioning identifies patients at high and low risk for ipsilateral tumor recurrence after breast-conserving surgery and radiation. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 40154021.
  • 31
    Therneau TM, Atkinson EJ. An introduction to recursive partitioning using the RPART routines. Mayo Foundation Technical Report. Rochester: Mayo Foundation, 1997.
  • 32
    Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS, 3rd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1999.
  • 33
    Lohmann C, Gibney E, Cotsonis G, Lawson D, Cohen C. Progesterone receptor immunohistochemical quantitation compared with cytosolic assay: correlation with prognosis in breast cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2001; 9: 4953.
  • 34
    Castagnetta L, Traina A, Agostara B, et al. Ligand binding and cytochemical analysis of estrogen and progesterone receptors in relation to follow-up in patients with breast cancer. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2002; 963: 98103.
  • 35
    Layfield LJ, Conlon DH, Dodge R, Saria E, Kerns B. Immunohistochemically determined estrogen and progesterone receptor levels: a comparison of three antibodies with the ligand-binding asset. Breast J. 1996; 2: 141149.
  • 36
    Press M, Spaulding B, Groshen S, et al. Comparison of different antibodies for detection of progesterone receptor in breast cancer. Steroids. 2002; 67: 799813.
  • 37
    Layfield LJ, Saria EA, Conlon DH, Kerns BM. Estrogen and progesterone receptor status determined by the Ventana ES 320 automated immunohistochemical stainer and the CAS 200 image analyzer in 236 early-stage breast carcinomas: prognostic significance. J Surg Oncol. 1996; 61: 177184.