Carcinoembryonic antigen in breast-cancer tissue: a useful prognostic indicator.

Abstract

Summary and conclusionsSections of breast carcinomas removed from 69 patients six to 13 years previously were examined using an immunoperoxidase technique to determine whether carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was present. Patients who had CEA-negative tumours had significantly higher five-and 10-year survival rates. The difference was not related to the stage of the disease, postoperative treatment, or histological type of tumour.These results suggest that immunohistological assessment of CEA in breast-cancer tissue may provide more precise prognostic information.Introduction Recently' we found a positive correlation between the presence of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in sections of breast carcinomas and the presence of lymph-node metastases. This

Response of breast carcinoma to endocrine therapy predicted using immunostained pelleted fine needle aspirates

“…The positivity for CEA (38%) is comparable with the results of previous studies (Shousha et al, 1979;Walker, 1980), but staining for CEA was not predictive of response to endocrine therapy. We are continuing clinical follow-up to determine whether positive staining will predict time to recurrence of primary tumours or length of survival.…”

“…It has been stated that the presence of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (Shousha et al, 1979;Walker, 1980), and the intensity of staining for a material similar to the large glycoprotein, termed epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) (Heyderman et al, 1985), using monoclonal antibodies HMFG1 (Wilkinson et al, 1984) and NCRC-I1 (Ellis et al, 1987), is predictive of outcome. Markers such as EMA and cytokeratin (antibody CAM 5.2;Makin et al, 1984) are of possible value for the distinction of breast epithelial cells from stroma.…”

“…It has been stated that the presence of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (Shousha et al, 1979;Walker, 1980), and the intensity of staining for a material similar to the large glycoprotein, termed epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) (Heyderman et al, 1985), using monoclonal antibodies HMFG1 (Wilkinson et al, 1984) Although smears prepared from fine needle aspirates have been used for the immunocytochemical localisation of oestrogen receptor and related proteins (Flowers et al, 1986;Cavailles et al, 1987;Coombes et al, 1987), these preparations are unsuitable for the comparative demonstration of multiple markers due to the variation in number of cells per slide, and limitations in the number of slides that can be prepared from a single aspirate. An alternative approach has been to expel the aspirates into tissue culture medium, and make cytospin preparations on polylysine coated slides (Hawkins et al, 1988 The aim of this study was to evaluate a quick and easy method suitable for a busy outpatient clinic, which would allow samples to be sent through the post for further processing, with no requirement for any low temperature storage.…”

Prognosis in Breast Carcinoma Utilizing Plasma Carcinoembryonic Antigen and Histologic Characteristics of the Primary Tumor

“…For in stance, Shousha et al [9] found that CEA negativity was associated with a lower fre quency of nodal métastasés and significantly higher survival rates (5-10 years). Similarly, Kuhadja et al [10] found that ductal carci nomas, 3 cm or less in diameter, exhibited a significant relationship between high CEA positivity and the presence of synchronous axillary nodal métastasés.…”

The clinical value of immunohistochemically demonstrable CEA in breast cancer: a possible method of selecting patients for adjuvant chemotherapy

“…An alternative method of CEA detection, which is not subject to these variables, is by immunohistochemistry which permits precise localization of CEA within individual tumour cells. Although the disease cannot be monitored by this method, attempts have been made to correlate immunohistochemically demonstrable CEA with various prognostic parameters (Shousha & Lyssiotis, 1978;Shousha et al, 1979;Walker, 1980). However, conflicting results have been obtained, probably attributable to differences in the characteristics of the CEA antiserum used in the immunohistochemical method (Walker, 1980).…”