ROLE OF IMMUNO-HISTOCHEMISTRY IN SUBTYPING OF BREAST CARCINOMA AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH HISTOLOGICAL GRADE AND LYMPH NODE STATUS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Immuno-histochemistry, Breast Carcinoma, Histological Grading, Lymph Node Status
Abstract
Background: Breast carcinoma is a biologically heterogeneous disease with variable prognosis and therapeutic response. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) plays a crucial role in molecular subtyping of breast cancer and provides important prognostic and predictive information beyond routine histopathology.
Objectives: To evaluate the role of immunohistochemistry in subtyping breast carcinoma and to study its association with histological grade and lymph node status.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included 50 histologically confirmed cases of breast carcinoma. Tumors were graded using the Nottingham modification of the Bloom–Richardson system. Immunohistochemical analysis for ER, PR, HER2/neu, and Ki-67 was performed, and cases were classified into molecular subtypes. Associations between IHC subtypes, histological grade, and lymph node status were analyzed.
Results: Invasive ductal carcinoma was the most common histological type. Luminal subtypes constituted the majority of cases. Luminal A tumors were predominantly associated with lower histological grades and lower lymph node involvement, whereas HER2-enriched and triple-negative subtypes showed significant association with higher histological grades, elevated Ki-67 index, and increased lymph node metastasis.
Conclusion: Immuno-histochemistry is an essential adjunct to histopathology in breast carcinoma, enabling accurate molecular subtyping and prognostic stratification. Its strong correlation with histological grade and lymph node status underscores its importance in guiding personalized management and therapeutic decisions.
References
2. Malvia S, Bagadi SA, Dubey US, Saxena S. Epidemiology of breast cancer in Indian women. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017;13(4):289–295.
3. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. Diagn Histopathol. 2007;13(2):79–86.
4. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Histopathology. 1991;19(5):403–410.
5. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in breast cancer. Cancer. 1989;63(1):181–187.
6. Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):747–752.
7. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(9):2206–2223.
8. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(15):4429–4434.
9. Thakur S, Grover RK, Gupta S, et al. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer in Indian women. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12(6):EC01–EC05.
10. Ambroise M, Ghosh M, Mallikarjuna VS, Kurian A. Immunohistochemical profile of breast cancer patients at a tertiary care hospital in South India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(3):625–629.
11. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al. Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(8):1736–1747.
12. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F, et al. Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(7):897–909.
13. Prat A, Perou CM. Deconstructing the molecular portraits of breast cancer. Mol Oncol. 2011;5(1):5–23.
14. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2492–2502.
15. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(11):783–792.
16. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(

