Krylova I.S., Shapkin Y.V., Polyakova V.O., Kleymenova T.S., Kvetnoy I.M.

Introduction. Fibroadenomatosis (FAM) is a heterogeneous group of pathological conditions of the mo-Nochnoi gland, with hormone-dependent nature and different degree of risk maligni of the organization. The use of routine histological stains is not enough to determine the expectation of FAM, therefore, the development of immunohistochemical markers for assessing progression PHAM is a prospective problem of modern morphology. The aim of this work is to assess the possibility of using immunohistochemical method with ve-eficacia levels and types of estrogen receptors (ER) to determine the potential and Pro-activity operativnoi FAM. Methods. Material for the study consists of breast tissue obtained during surgery, about localized FAM and in the course of reduction-tion operations. According to the results of morphological studies was formed the following groups of the study. Group I – non-proliferative FEMME, group II – proliferation-tive FAM, group III – carcinoma in situ, developed on the background of nonproliferative FAM, IV groups– carcinoma in situ, developed on the background of proliferative FEMME, group V – control. Immunohistochemistry was performed using primary antibodies to estrogen receptor type alpha (Erα) type beta (ERβ) and progesterone receptors (PR). Evaluation of expression was performed in terms of relative area. Results. As a result of the work, the following results were obtained. In group I, the expression level of ERα was 5,9±1,8%, ERβ 9,6±2,3%, and PR 7,6±2,3%. In group II ERα, 5,4±1,7%, ERβ 4,4±1,6 and PR 3,6±1,3. When the groups were compared, a significant increase in ERβ expression in group I was found. When comparing the groups with the control group, where the level of expression of ERα was 5,8±1,5%, ERβ 8,7±2,2% and PR 5,6±1,4%, group I did not show any difference in II Group, the expression level of ERβ was lower by half. In carcinoma groups in situ, against the background of nonproliferative FAM, ERα was 2,02±1,5%, ERβ 4,3±1,7, PR 5,7±2,8, and against the background of ERα proliferation was 3,1±1,0%, ERβ 2,6±1,2 and PR 5,4±1,6. Comparison within the group revealed differences in the expression levels of both ERα and ERβ, the same differences were found in the comparison of groups III and IV with the control group. The ratio of study markers in the nonproliferative FAM and nonproliferative cancer groups demonstrates that with FAM, sufficiently high levels of both alpha and beta estrogen, which are not significantly different from normal, and in the tumor process, all estrogen receptors are downregulated and the same trend is traced And in groups of proliferative processes. At the same time for non-proliferative processes more revealing is the change in the expression of estrogen beta for the proliferative level of estrogen alpha. Conclusion. The results demonstrate the possibility of using the immunostochochemical method with an evaluation of estrogen receptor expression levels for the diagnosis and evaluation of the proliferative potential of breast tissue.
FAM, ERα, ERβ, proliferation, mammary gland

Список литературы: 
  1. Aksel` E.M. Statistika zlokachestvennyh novoobrazovaniy zhenskoy polovoy sfery. Onkoginekologiya. 2012; 1: 18–23. [Aksel’ E.M. Statistika zlokachestvennyh novoobrazovanij zhenskoj polovoj sfery. Onkoginekologija. 2012; 1: 18–23 (in Russian)]
  2. Chissov V.I., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovaniya v Rossii v 2011 godu (zabolevaemost` i smertnost`). M.: FGU «MNIOI im. P.A. Gercena» Minzdrava Rossii, 2013; 289. [Chissov V.I., Starinskij V.V., Petrova G.V. Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovanija v Rossii v 2011 godu (zabolevaemost’ i smertnost’). M.: FGU «MNIOI im. P.A. Gercena» Minzdrava Rossii, 2013; 289 (in Russian)]
  3. Kerchelaeva S.B., Smetnik A.A., Bespalov V.G. Mastopatiya i profilaktika raka molochnoy zhelezy kak mezhdisciplinarnaya problema. RMZh. 2016; 15: 1018–25. [Kerchelaeva S.B., Smetnik A.A., Bespalov V.G. Mastopatija i profilaktika raka molochnoj zhelezy kak mezhdisciplinarnaja problema. RMZh. 2016; 15: 1018–25 (in Russian)]
  4. Mustafin Ch.K. Disgormonal`nye bolezni molochnoy zhelezy. Lech. Vrach. 2009; 11: 7–10. [Mustafin Ch.K. Disgormonal’nye bolezni molochnoj zhelezy. Lech. Vrach. 2009; 11: 7–10 (in Russian)]
  5. Radzinskiy V.E. Medicina molochnoy zhelezy i ginekologicheskie bolezni. Izd. 2-e. Pod red. V.E. Radzinskogo; Iz-vo OOO «Mediabyuro Status Prezens». M., 2017. [Radzinskij V.E. Medicina molochnoj zhelezy i ginekologicheskie bolezni. Izd. 2-e. Pod red. V.E. Radzinskogo; Iz-vo OOO «Mediabjuro Status Prezens». M., 2017 (in Russian)]
  6. Baylyuk E.N. Kliniko-morfologicheskie osobennosti proliferativnyh processov v molochnoy zheleze u bol`nyh miomoy matki. Avtoreferat diss. kand. med. nauk. Sankt-Peterburg, 2008. [Bajljuk E.N. Kliniko-morfologicheskie osobennosti proliferativnyh processov v molochnoj zheleze u bol’nyh miomoj matki. Avtoreferat diss. kand. med. nauk. Sankt-Peterburg, 2008 (in Russian)]
  7. Tagieva T.T. Dobrokachestvennye zabolevaniya molochnyh zhelez u zhenshhin pozdnego reproduktivnogo vozrasta. Ginekologiya. 2001; 3: 23–8. [Tagieva T.T. Dobrokachestvennye zabolevanija molochnyh zhelez u zhenshhin pozdnego reproduktivnogo vozrasta. Ginekologija. 2001; 3: 23–8 (in Russian)]
  8. Morris E.A., Comstock C.E., Lee C.H. et al. ACR BI-RADS Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th Ed. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology, 2013.
  9. Cheng G., Butler R., Warner M., Gustafsson J.A., Wilczek B., Landgren B.M. Effects of short-term estradiol and norethindrone acetate treatment on the breasts of normal postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2013; 20: 496–503.
  10. Li S., Han B., Liu G., Ouellet J., Labrie F., Pelletier G. Immunocytochemical localization of sex steroid hormone receptors in normal human mammary gland. J. of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry. 2010; 58: 509–15.
  11. Forster C., Makela S., Warri A., Kietz S., Becker D., Hultenby K., Warner M., Gustafsson J.A. Involvement of estrogen receptor b in terminal differentiation of mammary gland epithelium. PNAS. 2002; 99: 15578–83.
  12. Mackey R.H., Fanelli T.J., Modugno F., Hormone therapy, estrogen metabolism, and risk of breast cancer in the Women’s Health Initiative Hormone Therapy Trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012; 11: 2022–32.
  13. Njiaju U.O., Olopade O.I. Genetic determinants of breast cancer risk: a review of current literature and issues pertaining to clinical application. Breast J. 2012; 18: 436–42.
  14. Varman T. The emerging role of oestrogen-related receptor γ as a regulator of energy metabolism. Diabetologia. 2014; 57: 2440–3.
  15. Yan P., Yasmeen M., Beiyun C., Xinmin Z., Ping T. Update on Immunohistochemical Analysis in Breast Lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. (doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0482-RA).
  16. Chi A., Chen X., Chirala M., Younes M. Differential expression of estrogen receptor beta isoforms in human breast cancer tissue. Anticancer Res. 2003; 23: 211–6.
  17. Yan M., Rayoo M., Takano E.A., Fox S.B. Nuclear and cytoplasmic expressions of ERβ1 and ERβ2 are predictive of response to therapy and alters prognosis infamilial breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011; 126: 395–405.
  18. Zhu X., Leav I., Leung Y.K. Dynamic regulation of estrogen receptor-beta expression by DNA methylation during prostate cancer development and metastasis. Am. J. Pathol. 2004; 164: 2003–12.
  19. Smith L., Brannan R.A., Hanby A.M. Differential regulation of estrogen receptor beta isoforms by 5’ untranslated regions in cancer. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2009; 28: 1395–405.
  20. Zhao C., Dahlman-Wright K., Gustafsson J.A. Estrogen signaling via estrogen receptor beta. J. Biol. Chem. 2010; 285: 39575–9.
  21. Warner M., Gustafsson J.A. The role of estrogen receptor beta (ERbeta) in malignant diseases – a new potential target for antiproliferative drugs in prevention and treatment of cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2010; 396: 63–6.
  22. Hou Y.F., Yuan S.T., Li H.C. ERbeta exerts multiple stimulative effects on human breast carcinoma cells. Oncogene. 2004; 23: 5799–806.