HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - Lani

Becky · 12-19-2007, 10:58 AM

Dear Lani

Did you see the presentation on ER+/PR- molecular assay paper given on Friday? Naturally, Jean and I attended as there is not much information on this pathology.

Unfortunately, no Her2 marker (or any other marker besides ER and PR) were tested but I found the work fascinating in that when they looked at assays of ER+PR+ (++) versus ER+PR_ (+-) and ER-PR- (--) they first determined what the standard assay looked like molecularly for ++ and --. Then they put the samples in their correct column via what the tumors stained for and found that some ++ actually molecularly looked like +- or even (rarely) -- and vice versa. Then they moved the +- out of the +- column into the ++ or -- column as to what they looked like. Then it left the true +- women (which really are their own class).

It was interesting work. Of course they mentioned that +- women have the worst pathology (even over --) but when questioned that Her2 status wasn't looked out, the presenter admitted that most of the +- women were Her2+ (therefore the worst outcome for when this work was done a few years ago). And why there would be tamoxifen resistance in these women.

Jean and I later discussed this in light of women on this board who are ++ but do not respond to endocrine therapy and the -- who do not respond well to chemo (and that there cancer may actually look like and behave like the opposite).

Did you see this and what did you think?

12-19-2007, 10:58 AM	#1
Becky Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Stockton, NJ Posts: 4,179	Lani - Your Opinion on a Paper at SABCS Dear Lani Did you see the presentation on ER+/PR- molecular assay paper given on Friday? Naturally, Jean and I attended as there is not much information on this pathology. Unfortunately, no Her2 marker (or any other marker besides ER and PR) were tested but I found the work fascinating in that when they looked at assays of ER+PR+ (++) versus ER+PR_ (+-) and ER-PR- (--) they first determined what the standard assay looked like molecularly for ++ and --. Then they put the samples in their correct column via what the tumors stained for and found that some ++ actually molecularly looked like +- or even (rarely) -- and vice versa. Then they moved the +- out of the +- column into the ++ or -- column as to what they looked like. Then it left the true +- women (which really are their own class). It was interesting work. Of course they mentioned that +- women have the worst pathology (even over --) but when questioned that Her2 status wasn't looked out, the presenter admitted that most of the +- women were Her2+ (therefore the worst outcome for when this work was done a few years ago). And why there would be tamoxifen resistance in these women. Jean and I later discussed this in light of women on this board who are ++ but do not respond to endocrine therapy and the -- who do not respond well to chemo (and that there cancer may actually look like and behave like the opposite). Did you see this and what did you think? __________________ 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"