Loading…
Tissue carcinoembryonic antigen and oestrogen receptor status in breast carcinoma: an immunohistochemical study of clinical outcome in a series of 252 patients with long-term follow-up
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a well-known tumour marker whose immunohistochemical expression could be prognostically relevant in breast carcinomas. We evaluated CEA immunohistochemical expression, using the specific T84.66 monoclonal antibody, in a series of 252 consecutive cases of infiltratin...
Saved in:
Published in: | British journal of cancer 1998-05, Vol.77 (10), p.1661-1668 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a well-known tumour marker whose immunohistochemical expression could be prognostically relevant in breast carcinomas. We evaluated CEA immunohistochemical expression, using the specific T84.66 monoclonal antibody, in a series of 252 consecutive cases of infiltrating breast carcinomas (104 N0, 148 N1/2) with median follow-up of 84 months. Oestrogen receptor (ER) status has been evaluated with the immunohistochemical method (ER1D5 antibody, 10% cut-off value): 121 cases were ER negative, 128 cases were ER positive and in three cases ER status was unknown. CEA staining was cytoplasmic; staining intensity and percentage of reacting cells were combined to obtain a final score (CEA score). The difference between the distribution of CEA score within the modalities of the other variables was not statistically significant. Univariate survival analysis has been performed on the series of node-negative and node-positive patients. In the latter subgroup, this has been performed separately for patients treated with systemic adjuvant hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. A multivariate analysis was only performed for node-positive patients treated with adjuvant therapy. CEA immunoreactivity was not prognostically relevant in any subset of analysed patients. The most important prognostic markers were nodal status and tumour size. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0007-0920 1532-1827 |
DOI: | 10.1038/bjc.1998.273 |