Abstract
Nodal involvement is accepted as the best single marker of prognosis in breast cancer. However, there is little information on the sub-division of node-positive patients according to the oestrogen receptor status of the nodal tissue. We have previously reported (Eur. J. Ca. 1987, 23, 31) that, in almost all cases, involved nodes are only oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) in patients whose primary tumours are uniformly ER+. This paper presents clinical follow-up on a larger group of patients with node positive breast cancer. For each patient, both soluble and nuclear receptor concentrations were determined in three separate parts of the primary tumour and in at least one involved node (we have previously defined tumours which contained ER in all six fractions of the primary as HS++, those lacking receptor in some fractions as HS+- and wholly receptor negative tumours as HS--). Median follow-up time was 71.5 months. As expected, patients whose tumours were HS++ had a significant (P less than 0.008) survival advantage. More importantly, patients with ER in both the soluble and nuclear fractions of their involved nodes survived significantly (P less than 0.003) longer than those with ER- nodes. Thus, full oestrogen receptor status of involved nodes will give sufficient prognostic information when adequate primary tissue is not available.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 24 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $10.79 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castagnetta, L., Traina, A., Carruba, G. et al. The prognosis of breast cancer patients in relation to the oestrogen receptor status of both primary disease and involved nodes. Br J Cancer 66, 167–170 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1992.236
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1992.236


