Lani - Your Opinion on a Paper at SABCS

[Becky]

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?