Evaluation of Biomarkers (Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor and HER-2) Immunostaining on Fine Needle Aspirates in Carcinoma Breast: A Prospective Observational Study
Rama Saha Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, West Bengal, India
Sayan Kundu Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, PKG Medical College, Kolkata, India
Jayati Chakraborty Professor, Department of Pathology, ESIC Medical College & Hospital, Joka, Kolkata, India
Address for correspondence: Rama Saha, Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, West Bengal, India E-mail: rama.path@aiimskalyani.edu.in
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
Kundu S, Saha R, Chakraborty J. Evaluation of Biomarkers (Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor and HER-2) Immunostaining on Fine Needle Aspirates in Carcinoma Breast: A Prospective Observational Study. Ind Jr of Path: Res and Practice. 2025;14(3):97-106.
Timeline
Received : June 24, 2025
Accepted : July 21, 2025
Published : December 27, 2025
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer remains one of the most prevalent cancers affecting women worldwide, with early detection and accurate biomarker evaluation playing pivotal roles in prognosis and treatment planning. Immunohistochemical analysis of biomarkers such as Estrogen Receptor (ER), Progesterone Receptor (PR), and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER-2/neu) on tissue samples is standard practice. However, the use of fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology as a minimally invasive method for evaluating these biomarkers is gaining attention for its potential diagnostic utility and advantages. Aims and objectives of this study were to study the expression of biomarkers ER, PR, HER2 in FNAC smears of breast carcinoma and core needle biopsy, to evaluate whether there is a concordance or discordance in expression of these biomarkers in FNAC smears as compared to that of core needle biopsy and to assess the utility of FNAC in preoperative assessment of biomarker status in breast carcinoma. Methods: It was a hospital based prospective study. Forty cases of breast carcinoma of which both FNAC and core needle biopsy were performed were included in our study. Results: We studied 40 patients of histopathologically proven Breast Carcinoma. When compared to Immunohistochemistry, there was 82.5% diagnostic accuracy of Immunocytochemistry (ICC) done on FNAC for ER. For PR and HER2 diagnostic accuracy of ICC was 87.5% and 77.5% respectively.
References
1. Report of National Cancer Registry Programme (ICMR-NCDIR), Bengaluru, India 2020, Based on five year Report of Hospital Based Cancer Registries: 2012-2016.
2. Lester SC. Carcinoma of the breast. In: Cotran RS, Kumar V, Collins T, editors. Robbins & Cotran pathologic basis of disease. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2024. p. 1046-1061.
3. College of American Pathologists (CAP). Template for Reporting Results of Biomarker Testing of Specimens from Patients with Carcinoma of the Breast. Version 2.0. 2023.
4. Sofi GN, Sofi JN, Nadeem R et al (2012). Estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status in breast cancer in relation to age, histological grade, size of lesion and lymph node involvement. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012;13:5047-52.
5. Jindal, A., Gothwal, P. and Solanki, R. (2022) ‘A Study of Molecular Subtypes of Carcinoma Breast by Immunohistochemistry at Tertiary Care Center, Jaipur’, Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Biology, 7(3), pp. 219–223. doi:10.31557/APJCB.2022.7.3.219.
6. Srivastava NK, Singh S, Mohanty D, Hussain N. Clinicopathological profile of breast cancer from Chhattisgarh India: A single-center hospital-based study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2023 Sep;12(9):1923-1930. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc. jfmpc_2315_22. Epub 2023 Sep 30. PMID: 38024932; PMCID: PMC10657078.
7. Gong Y, Symmans WF, Krishnamurthy S, Patel S, Sneige N. Optimal fixation conditions for immunocytochemical analysis of estrogen receptor in cytologic specimens of breast carcinoma.Cancer. 2004;102:34–40.
8. Rhodes A, Jasani B, Balaton AJ, Barnes DM, Anderson E, Bobrow LG, et al. Study of interlaboratory reliability and reproducibility of estrogen and progesterone receptor assays in Europe. Documentation of poor reliability and identification of insufficient microwave antigen retrieval time as a major contributory element of unreliable assays. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:44–58.
9. Zeng J, Piscuoglio S, Aggarwal G, Magda J, Friedlander MA, Murray M, Akram M, ReisFilho JS, Weigelt B, Edelweiss M. Hormone receptor and HER2 assessment in breast carcinoma metastatic to bone: A comparison between FNA cell blocks and decalcified core needle biopsies. Cancer Cytopathol. 2020 Feb;128(2):133-145. doi: 10.1002/cncy.22226. Epub 2019 Dec 28. PMID: 31883437; PMCID: PMC7027380.
10. Toi PC, Neelaiah S, Dharanipragada K, Surendra K. Evaluation of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors and Her-2 Expression with Grading in the Fine-needle Aspirates of Patients with Breast Carcinoma. J Cytol. 2018 Oct-Dec;35(4):223-228. doi: 10.4103/ JOC.JOC_127_17. PMID: 30498294; PMCID: PMC6210817.
11. Bansal M, Bagga PK, Singh S, Paul S. Comparative evaluation of immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and her2 in fine needle aspiration cell blocks and surgical biopsies in primary breast carcinoma. International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research 2020;7(1):A1-A6.
12. Kimambo AH, Vuhahula EA, Mwakigonja AR, Ljung BM, Zhang L, Van Loon K, Ng DL. Evaluating Estrogen Receptor Immunohistochemistry on Cell Blocks From Breast Cancer Patients in a Low-Resource Setting. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021 Jul 1;145(7):834-841. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0086- OA. PMID: 33053150; PMCID: PMC9124437.
13. Francis IM, Altemaimi RA, Al-Ayadhy B, Alath P, Jaragh M, Mothafar FJ, Kapila K. Hormone Receptors and Human Epidermal Growth Factor (HER2) Expression in FineNeedle Aspirates from Metastatic Breast Carcinoma - Role in Patient Management. J Cytol. 2019 Apr-Jun;36(2):94-100. doi: 10.4103/ JOC.JOC_117_18. PMID: 30992644; PMCID: PMC6425780.
14. Pinto D, Schmitt FC; Immunohistochemistry Applied to Breast Cytological Material. Pathobiology 3 October 2022; 89 (5): 343–358.
15. Salama AM, Hanna MG, Giri D, Kezlarian B, Jean MH, Lin O, Vallejo C, Brogi E, Edelweiss M. Digital validation of breast biomarkers (ER, PR, AR, and HER2) in cytology specimens using three different scanners. Mod Pathol. 2022 Jan;35(1):52-59. doi: 10.1038/s41379-021- 00908-5. Epub 2021 Sep 13. PMID: 34518629; PMCID: PMC8702445.
16. Madathiveetil S, Thodiyil JK, Rose F. Comparison of grading and ER, PR hormone receptor status of carcinoma breast in FNAC with histopathology – a cross sectional study from Thrissur, Kerala. J Evid Based Med Healthc2021;8(21):1696-1700.
17. Nair R. R, Nandish S, Prathibha R. J, Nandini N. M. Cytological Diagnostic and Prognostic Methods using Immunocytochemistry (Estrogen Receptor) for Surgical Management of Breast Cancer. Biomed Pharmacol J 2022;15(4).
18. Pareja F, Murray MP, Jean RD, Konno F, Friedlander M, Lin O, Edelweiss M. Cytologic assessment of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status in metastatic breast carcinoma. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2017 JanFeb;6(1):33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jasc.2016.10.001. PMID: 28529880; PMCID: PMC5436133.
Data Sharing Statement
There are no additional data available.
Funding
This research received no funding.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed significantly to the work and approve its publication.
Ethics Declaration
This article does not involve any human or animal subjects, and therefore does not require ethics approval.
Acknowledgements
Information not provide.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
About this article
Cite this article
Kundu S, Saha R, Chakraborty J. Evaluation of Biomarkers (Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor and HER-2) Immunostaining on Fine Needle Aspirates in Carcinoma Breast: A Prospective Observational Study. Ind Jr of Path: Res and Practice. 2025;14(3):97-106.
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
Table 2: Frequency distribution table of tumor laterality
Description: No description available.
Table 3: Frequency distribution table of tumor site:
Description: No description available.
Table 8: ER, PR, HER2 status on FNAC smear (ICC)
Description: No description available.
Figure 1: FNAC smears of Breast Carcinoma: A. Invasive Ductal Carcinoma NOS Leishman Giemsa stain 10X. B. Invasive Ductal Carcinoma NOS Leishman Giemsa stain 40X. C. Papillary Breast Carcinoma Leishman Giemsa stain 10X.
Description: No description available.
Figure 2: Core Needle Biopsy of Breast Carcinoma A. H & E stain 4x. B. H & E stain 10X. C. H & E stain 40x
Description: No description available.
Figure 3: Immunohistochemistry on Core Needle biopsy: A. ER Positive 10X. B. ER Positive 40x. C. PR-Positive 10x. D. PR-Positive 40X. E. HER 2 Positive 40X
Description: No description available.
Figure 4: Immunocytochemistry on FNAC material of Breast Carcinoma. A. ER-Negative 40X. B. ER-Positive 40X. C. ER+ 40X. C. PR+ 40X D. HER 2 (3+) 10X, E: HER 2 (3+) 40X. E. HER 2 3+ 10X