Table 1.
Quick score method accounting for the percentage of cells staining positive for a particular marker and the intensity of antibody staining.
Table 2.
Clinical and pathologic characteristics (N = 160).
Fig 1.
TAP1 and TAP2 expression in breast cancer specimens distributed across two tissue microarrays.
TMAs were scored by a certified pathologist for intensity and extent of staining. (A and B) Distribution of maximum TAP1 and TAP2 quick scores, respectively, among individual breast cancer tumor specimens. (C-F) TAP1-stained TMA cores from breast tumor specimens. (C) Grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma: 0 intensity × 0% extent. (D) Grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma: 1 intensity × 80% extent. (E) Grade 2 invasive ductal carcinoma: 2 intensity × 60% extent. (F) Grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma: 3 intensity × 90% extent. (G-J) represents TAP2-stained TMA cores from breast tumor specimens. (G) Grade 2 invasive lobular carcinoma: 0 intensity × 0% extent. (H) Grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma: 1 intensity × 80% extent. (I) Grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma: 2 intensity × 90% extent. (J) Grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma: 3 intensity × 100% extent. TMA indicates tissue microarray. The scale bar in each image denotes 100 μm. (K) Both TAP1 and TAP 2 maximum expression levels were positively correlated by linear regression analysis (R2 = 0.6684; P < .001). TAP1 and TAP2 scores, determined by the quick-score method, ranged from 0 to 18.
Fig 2.
Correlation of expression levels of TAP1 and TAP2 in patients with stage and grade.
(A and B) Mean ± SEM TAP1 and TAP2 expression levels, respectively, determined by the quick-score method, are shown; scores ranged from 0 to 18. Eight patients were excluded from this analysis because of missing stage data. (C and D) Percent of samples staining for TAP1 and TAP2 staining, respectively, among the 3 stage subsets. (E and F) Mean ± SEM TAP1 and TAP2 expression levels, respectively, determined by the quick-score method, are shown; scores ranged from 0 to 18. Thirty-five patients were excluded from this analysis because of missing grade data. The grade 1 subset had only 4 patients. (G and H) Percent of samples staining for TAP1 (G) and TAP2 (H) among the 3 grade subsets. Scores were divided into 3 groups (0–6 = negative/low; 7–12 = moderate; 13–18 = high). P values were calculated using unpaired Student’s T test for panels A, B, E, and F and The Fisher’s exact test for panels C, D, G, and H.
Fig 3.
Correlation of expression levels of TAP1 and TAP2 in patients categorized based on progesterone receptor (PR) status, estrogen receptor (ER) status, and HER2/neu expression levels.
(A and B) Expression levels of TAP1 (A) and TAP2 (B) in patients with breast cancer patients expressing negative, low, or high levels of estrogen receptors (ERs). Thirty-five patients were excluded from the analysis because of missing ER expression data. (C and D) Expression levels of TAP1(C) and TAP2 (D) in patients with breast cancer expressing negative, low, or high levels of progesterone receptors (PRs). (E and F) Expression levels of TAP1(E) and TAP2 (F) in patients with breast cancer expressing negative, low, or high levels of progesterone receptors (PRs). Thirty-five patients were excluded from the analysis because of missing PR expression data. (G and H) Percent of samples staining for TAP1 (G) and TAP2 (H) among the 3 ER expression groups. (I and J) Percent of different TAP1 (I) and TAP2 (J) staining levels among the 3 PR expression groups. (K and L) Percent of samples staining for TAP1(K) and TAP2 (L) among the 4 HER2/neu expression groups. Expression levels of TAP1 and TAP2 in patients negative and positive for HER2/neu breast cancer TAP1 and TAP2 scores were divided into 3 groups (0–6 = negative/low; 7–12 = moderate; 13–18 = high) for panels A-F. P values were calculated using unpaired Student’s T test for panels A-F and The Fisher’s exact test for panels G-L.