Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 15, 2026
Profiling of Estrogen-regulated MicroRNAs in Breast Cancer Cells
Published on: February 21, 2014
Independent Relevance of Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor Statuses in DCIS on Risk of Subsequent
Thomas J O'Keefe1, Audrey Guo2, David R Vera3
1Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92093, USA.
Background:
Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) derive a greater benefit from endocrine therapy than patients with ER-negative disease. The relevance of ER status and progesterone receptor (PR) status in DCIS to radiation therapy has not been well explored.
Methods:
Patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with or without radiation were grouped by ER and PR status and matched using rank-based Mahalanobis optimal matching with respect to lesion size and grade and patient age and race. Cumulative incidences were estimated and competing risk regressions with subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated.
Results:
Among patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery only, 369 patients with ER-PR- disease were matched to 738 patients with ER+PR+ disease (1:2 matching). In multivariate models, patients with ER-PR- disease were at increased risk of any invasive events (sHR = 2.47, p = 0.007) and early ipsilateral invasive events (sHR = 2.64, p = 0.02 in the 0-to-4-year period) relative to patients with ER+PR+ disease. Among patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation, 1498 patients with ER+PR+ disease were matched to 1498 patients with ER-PR- disease. No significant differences were noted with respect to cumulative incidence of any invasive event (5.6% vs. 5.6%) or ipsilateral invasive events (1.9% vs. 2.9%). In multivariate models, no significant differences were noted. Patients with ER-PR+ lesions had similar cumulative incidences of ipsilateral invasive events to patients with ER-PR- disease in the absence of radiation (5.9% vs. 5.9%) and similar cumulative incidences of contralateral invasive events to patients with ER+PR+ disease when radiation was administered (3.2% vs. 4.2%).
Conclusion:
The statuses of ER and PR carry independent prognostic and therapeutic implications beyond those of traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. Given that ER and PR statuses are routinely collected for patients with DCIS, incorporation of these variables into clinicopathologic risk classification systems is warranted.
