Breast Neoplasms: Eisen RN

Yaziji H, Taylor CR, Goldstein NS, Dabbs DJ, Hammond EH, Hewlett B, Floyd AD, Barry TS, Martin AW, Badve S, Baehner F, Cartun RW, Eisen RN, Swanson PE, Hewitt SM, Vyberg M, Hicks DG, Anonymous00020. · Vitro Molecular Laboratories, Miami, FL daggerKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. · Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. · Pubmed #18931614 No free full text.

Abstract: Estrogen receptor (ER) status in breast cancer is currently the most important predictive biomarker that determines breast cancer prognosis after treatment with endocrine therapy. Although immunohistochemistry has been widely viewed as the gold standard methodology for ER testing in breast cancer, lack of standardized procedures, and lack of regulatory adherence to testing guidelines has resulted in high rates of "false-negative" results worldwide. Standardized testing is only possible after all aspects of ER testing--preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical, have been closely controlled. A meeting of the "ad-hoc committee" of expert pathologists, technologists, and scientists, representing academic centers, reference laboratories, and various agencies, issued standardization testing recommendations, aimed at optimization of clinical ER testing environment, as a step toward improved standardized testing.

Mullen DJ, Eisen RN, Newman RD, Perrone PM, Wilsey JC. · Department of Radiology, Greenwich Hospital, 5 Perryridge Rd, Greenwich, CT 06830, USA. · Radiology. · Pubmed #11152811 links to  free full text

Abstract: PURPOSE: To investigate the use of activated charcoal to mark the biopsy site and needle track after large-core-needle breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred seventy-six consecutive patients (with 383 lesions) were referred for stereotactic breast biopsy. Two hundred forty-seven lesions were carbon marked when the need for surgery was likely. Patients who underwent marking were followed up for the results of surgery or mammography performed at our institution. Specimen sizes obtained by using the carbon mark were compared with sizes of consecutive biopsy specimens obtained after hook-wire localization. RESULTS: Carbon marking was well tolerated in all cases. All 132 surgeries performed at the authors' institution were successful in removing the marked target. Specimen sizes compared favorably with sizes of comparison hook-wire localization specimens. All 68 lesions followed mammographically revealed no changes that were attributable to the use of carbon. Two minor complications were observed. Two small cancers were completely removed at needle biopsy. CONCLUSION: Carbon marking is safe and effective for marking the biopsy site and needle track created by stereotactic large-core-needle biopsy of the breast. Marking eliminates the need for postprocedural needle localization. It remains effective when small lesions have been completely removed. This technique should be considered in properly selected cases by those performing large-core-needle biopsy of the breast.