[Becky]

I think ER+PR- disease is a totally different beast than ER+PR+ disease. Then, you are adding the Her2 into the mix which this article does not. This article is adding EGFR (aka Her1) into the mix.

It is an article, in my opinion, that may have been somewhat misquoted (as many articles can be unless you get the actual abstract).

I think what this article is trying to say (just me thinking out loud here), is that most women are ER+PR+ (but not Her2+). Many of these women do very, very well but some do very poorly. This may be because these women are also Her1+ (this is not tested for yet). In general, there is some interaction between PR and Her1 that is initiated by this protein that is only present if you are ER+PR+. So, you have this protein and if you are Her1+ too - BINGO!

That's kind of how I read it. If PR neg, this can't happen. Oddly though, being PR neg does tend to make scientists wonder, then some Her family must be positive - in our case Her2. Even in triple negative cancer, something is driving that cancer. For these women, some might be Her1+ or Her3+ or IGFR+ or something not known or understood.

We know all bc in each of us is different, even if we have the exact same pathology since our genetic makeups are unique to us and so too, our cancer.