Previous reports by us have shown that the outcome of breast cancer patients who have received systemic adjuvant therapy is influenced by tumor estrogen or progesterone receptor (ER or PR) content or by nuclear grade. This publication provides information regarding the relative merit of those three markers. Findings from patients receiving L-PAM plus 5-FU (PF) or PF plus tamoxifen (PFT) indicate that the disease-free survival and survival within each regimen was almost identical when related to either ER, PR, or nuclear grade. Those having tumors with either of the receptors ≥10 fmol or a good nuclear grade had a better outcome through five postoperative years than did those with ER or PR 0–9 fmol or poor nuclear grade. The magnitude of the difference was similar for each of the three discriminants. Since they were found to be of equal predictive value, one marker might well serve as a substitute for another. Cox regression analyses, however, clearly indicate that ER, PR, and nuclear grade have an independent influence on outcome and that a more accurate assessment of outcome is obtained when more than one marker is employed. Thus, information should be obtained on as many markers as possible. This conclusion is supported by observations presented which indicate that nuclear grade in combination with either or both of the receptors is a better predictor than either marker alone and that, as indicated by life table probability values and relative odds ratios, an increasing number of favorable tumor prognostic indicators results in a better patient outcome particularly in PFT-treated patients. A possible explanation is considered for why the separation of receptor/nuclear grade categories is more orderly and pronounced in PF-treated patients receiving tamoxifen than in those given PF alone.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Knight WA, Livingston RB, Gregory EJ, McGuire WL: Estrogen receptor is an independent prognostic factor for early recurrence in breast cancer. Cancer Res 37: 4669–4671, 1977
Rich MA, Furmanski P, Brooks SC: Prognostic value of estrogen receptor determinations in patients with breast cancer. Cancer Res 38: 4296–4298, 1978
Allegra JC, Lippman ME, Simon R et al.: Association between steroid hormone receptor status and disease-free interval in breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 63: 1271–1277, 1979
Fisher ER, Redmond C, Fisher B: Histologic grading of breast cancer. Pathol Ann 15: 239–251, 1980
Fisher ER, Redmond C, Liu H et al.: Correlation of estrogen receptor and pathologic characteristics of invasive breast cancer. Cancer 45: 349–353, 1980
Fisher ER, Osborne CK, McGuire WL et al.: Correlation of primary breast cancer histopathology and estrogen receptor content. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1: 37–41, 1981
Fisher B, Redmond C, Wickerham DL et al.: Relation of estrogen and/or progesterone content of breast cancer to patient outcome following adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 3: 355–364, 1983
Fisher ER, Redmond C, Fisher B et al.: Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project. VIII. Relationship of chemotherapeutic responsiveness to tumor differentiation. Cancer 51: 181–191, 1983
Fisher B: Ten year results from the NSABP clinical trial evaluating the use of 1-phenylalanine mustard (L-PAM) in the management of primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4: 929–941, 1986
Fisher B, Redmond C, Brown A et al.: Treatment of primary breast cancer with chemotherapy and tamoxifen. N Engl J Med 305: 1–6, 1981
Fisher B, Redmond C, Brown A et al.: Influence of tumor estrogen and progesterone receptor levels on the response to tamoxifen and chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1: 227–241, 1983
Fisher B, Redmond C, Brown A et al.: Adjuvant chemotherapy with and without tamoxifen in the treatment of primary breast cancer: five year results from the NSABP trial. J Clin Oncol 4: 459–471, 1986
Cutler CJ, Ederer F: Maximum utilization of the life table method in analyzing survival. J Chronic Dis 8: 699–712, 1958
Mantel N: Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 50: 163–170, 1966
Cox DR: Regression models and life-tables. J Roy Stat Soc (B) 34: 187–220, 1972
Peto R, Peto J: Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures. J Roy Stat Soc (A) 135: 185–206, 1972
Fisher B, Gunduz N, Zheng S, Saffer EA: Fluoresceinated estrone binding by human and mouse breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 42: 540–549, 1982
Cutler SJ, Black MM, Friedell GH et al.: Prognostic factors in cancer of the female breast. II. Reproducibility of histo-pathologic classification. Cancer 19: 75, 1966
Gresham GA: Grading of mammary carcinoma. Clin Oncol 2: 351, 1976
Gilchrist KW, Kalish L, Gould VE et al.: Interobserver reproducibility of histopathological features in Stage II breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 5: 3–10, 1985
Fisher ER, Gregorio RM, Fisher B: The pathology of invasive breast cancer. A syllabus derived from findings of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (Protocol No. 4). Cancer 36: 1, 1975
McGuire WL, Dressler LG: Emerging impact of flow cytometry in predicting recurrence and survival in breast cancer patients. JNCI 75: 405–410, 1985
See Appendix I
About this article
Cite this article
Fisher, B., Fisher, E.R., Redmond, C. et al. Tumor nuclear grade, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor: Their value alone or in combination as indicators of outcome following adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Tr 7, 147–160 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01806245
- adjuvant therapy
- breast cancer
- estrogen receptor
- nuclear grade
- patient outcome
- progesterone receptor