HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - finally...a basic question is being looked @:her2+ER+s have differnt relapse pattern

Becky · 12-05-2009, 03:50 PM

It seems studies and research in general fail to separate out the progesterone receptor which is very, very key.

There have been presentations and posters in regard to those (like me) who are ER+ but PR neg. One such study was interesting. It looked at the molecular assay of ER+PR+ vs ER+PRneg and ERnegPRneg. This study did not take Her2 or any other marker into consideration. The interesting thing is that ER+PR+ and ERnegPRneg cancers have a certain "look" to them on a molecular assay "picture". When studying ER+PRneg cancers they found 3 things. Some of these tumors look like ER+PR+. Some look like ERnegPRneg. But there are a few ER+PRneg cancers that look very different from either. (Interestingly, some ER+PR+ cancers look like ERnegPRneg cancers and vice versa).

The point of the presentation is that a few ER+PRneg cancers are really what they are - different. But many are really in a more common category.

The study Lani posted is interesting but I bet they didn't separate out PR so some of these women are PR+ and some are negative. However, if a woman is ER+ she also tends to be PR+ as well as the ER+PRneg is quite rare. Even on this board, there are only a few of us in this category.

For Tricia Keegan - I would take the data as most are triple positive but I would bet my bottom dollar that there are a couple of PRnegs in there.

12-05-2009, 03:50 PM	#5
Becky Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Stockton, NJ Posts: 4,179	Re: finally...a basic question is being looked @:her2+ER+s have differnt relapse patt It seems studies and research in general fail to separate out the progesterone receptor which is very, very key. There have been presentations and posters in regard to those (like me) who are ER+ but PR neg. One such study was interesting. It looked at the molecular assay of ER+PR+ vs ER+PRneg and ERnegPRneg. This study did not take Her2 or any other marker into consideration. The interesting thing is that ER+PR+ and ERnegPRneg cancers have a certain "look" to them on a molecular assay "picture". When studying ER+PRneg cancers they found 3 things. Some of these tumors look like ER+PR+. Some look like ERnegPRneg. But there are a few ER+PRneg cancers that look very different from either. (Interestingly, some ER+PR+ cancers look like ERnegPRneg cancers and vice versa). The point of the presentation is that a few ER+PRneg cancers are really what they are - different. But many are really in a more common category. The study Lani posted is interesting but I bet they didn't separate out PR so some of these women are PR+ and some are negative. However, if a woman is ER+ she also tends to be PR+ as well as the ER+PRneg is quite rare. Even on this board, there are only a few of us in this category. For Tricia Keegan - I would take the data as most are triple positive but I would bet my bottom dollar that there are a couple of PRnegs in there. __________________ Kind regards Becky Found lump via BSE Diagnosed 8/04 at age 45 1.9cm tumor, ER+PR-, Her2 3+(rt side) 2 micromets to sentinel node Stage 2A left 3mm DCIS - low grade ER+PR+Her2 neg lumpectomies 9/7/04 4DD AC followed by 4 DD taxol Used Leukine instead of Neulasta 35 rads on right side only 4/05 started Tamoxifen Started Herceptin 4 months after last Taxol due to trial results and 2005 ASCO meeting & recommendations Oophorectomy 8/05 Started Arimidex 9/05 Finished Herceptin (16 months) 9/06 Arimidex Only Prolia every 6 months for osteopenia NED 18 years! Said Christopher Robin to Pooh: "You must remember this: You're braver than you believe and stronger than you seem and smarter than you think"