Concordance of test results in routine diagnostic HER2 assays in breast cancer.

<p>Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and FISH in <u>2011 and 2012.</u></p

Analysis of GPER localization by conventional and confocal immunofluorescence microscopy.

<p>Representative images of two independent experiments each performed in duplicates. A: Immunofluorescence microscopy showing a different expression pattern in MCF7 (predominantly nuclear) and T47D (predominantly cytoplasmic). The GPER-negative MDA-MB231 cell line was used as negative control. B: Confocal microscopy in T47D and MCF7 using a Leica SP5 microscope (with Leica HyD hybrid detection system). T47D show a strong GPER expression which is mainly localized in the cytoplasm of the cell. No distinct membranous expression was observed. MCF7 show a less strong GPER expression, which is clearly detectable inside the nucleus by analysis of the confocal images.</p

Correlation between the clinicopathological factors and GPER expression.

<p>Intrinsic subtypes <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0083296#pone.0083296-Kristiansen1" target="_blank">[13]</a>.</p

Kaplan-Meier analysis: Better overall survival in patients with positive cytoplasmic GPER expression compared to negative cytoplasmic GPER expression (log rank, p = 0.012).

<p>Kaplan-Meier analysis: Better overall survival in patients with positive cytoplasmic GPER expression compared to negative cytoplasmic GPER expression (log rank, p = 0.012).</p

Immunohistochemical expression of GPER in invasive breast carcinoma.

<p>A: A predominantly cytoplasmic expression in a moderate differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma. B: A predominantly cytoplasmic expression in a well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma with a perinuclear accentuation. C: Strong nuclear expression in a poorly differentiated invasive ductal breast cancer. D: Epithelium of terminal ductal-lobular units of normal breast tissue shows strong nuclear expression. The magnification of all images is 200×.</p

Univariate COX regression analysis: factors predicting overall survival.

<p>Intrinsic subtypes <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0083296#pone.0083296-Kristiansen1" target="_blank">[13]</a>.</p

Comparison of EPclin score and Recurrence score (RS). RS in two tiered system: low vs. intermediate+high risk.

<p>Comparison of EPclin score and Recurrence score (RS). RS in two tiered system: low vs. intermediate+high risk.</p

Comparison of ER/PR/<i>HER2</i> status with Oncotype DX assay and conventional methodology (Immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization ‘FISH’ testing).

<p>In one case results of Oncotype DX for ER/PR/HER2 status were not available.</p

Comparison of EP score and Recurrence score (RS).

<p>RS in three tiered system.</p

Summary of clinical data.

<p>ER: estrogen receptors, PR: progesterone receptors, NA: not available.</p