Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Clinical Oncology/Epidemiology
  • Published:

Clinical Oncology/Epidemiology

Comparison of two oestrogen receptor assays in the prediction of the clinical course of patients with advanced breast cancer

Abstract

We have examined two new oestrogen receptor (ER) assays--an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and an immunocytochemical assay (ICA) in a large series of primary breast tumours to compare their potential as predictors of (1) response to endocrine therapy and (2) survival in patients developing advanced breast cancer. Response to endocrine therapy was categorised at 6 months (UICC criteria). ER-ICA appears the better predictor of response to endocrine therapy than ER-EIA. Combining ICA and EIA results did not improve the prediction of response. With both assays patients with ER positive tumours survived longer from the time of diagnosis of advanced disease than those with ER negative tumours. The predictive power of these assay for progression of disease appears slightly better for the ER-ICA.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robertson, J., Bates, K., Pearson, D. et al. Comparison of two oestrogen receptor assays in the prediction of the clinical course of patients with advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 65, 727–730 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1992.153

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1992.153

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links