Distribution Pattern of ER & PR Immunoexpression in Endometrial Biopsies of DUB and Infertile Patients from A Tertiary Care Centre

In: Annals of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine · 2017 · vol. 4(6) , pp. A626–A631 · doi:10.21276/apalm.1374 · W2775713173
article OA: diamond CC0
AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08

This study examined ER and PR immunoexpression in endometrial biopsies of DUB and infertile patients, finding higher expression in the proliferative phase for DUB and a greater determinant role for positive cell percentage over quick score.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-11 · read from full text

This study examined endometrial estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) immunoexpression across menstrual cycle phases in 107 women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) and 23 infertile patients, using immunohistochemistry and quantifying receptor expression in glandular epithelium and stromal cells by both percentage of immunopositive cells and the Quick score method, with uterovaginal prolapse hysterectomy specimens as controls. Secretory endometrium was the most common histopathological finding, and mean total ER and PR expression in DUB cases was higher in the proliferative phase than in other phases by both quantification methods (p<0.05). In infertility cases, percentage of positively stained cells did not show a statistically significant difference between phases for ER, but Quick score indicated significant differences in receptor expression between phases. The paper’s conclusions emphasize that the percentage of positive cells is more determinant for studying ER and PR expression in DUB and infertility than Quick score, though it relies on biopsy-based assessment and quantitative method choice as a key caveat. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Objective: To study endometrial estrogen and progesterone immunoexpression in different phases of menstrual cycle, in cases of dysfunctional uterine bleeding and infertility. A comparative analysis was also done for calculating ER & PR expression, between two methods: quick score and percentage of immunopositive cells.Methods: Endometrial biopsies from 107 clinically diagnosed DUB cases and 23 infertile patients were included in the study. Tissue sections were analyzed for different phases of menstrual cycle and immunoexpression of ER & PR receptors was calculated in glandular epithelium and stromal cells, using percentage of positively stained cells and Quick score method. Endometrial sections of hysterectomy specimens of uterovaginal prolapse cases were used as control sections.Result: In the present analysis, secretory endometrium was the commonest finding histopathologically. Mean total ER & PR expression in cases of DUB was statistically higher in the proliferative phase using both methods (p<0.05). Mean total ER expression difference in both the phases of infertility cases was not statistically significant by the observation of percentage of positively stained cells. However, quick score revealed significant difference between both receptor expression in infertile patients.Conclusion:The percentage of positive cells for ER and PR expression plays a more determinant role in studying ER and PR expression in cases of DUB and infertility as compared to quick score. DOI: 10.21276/APALM.1374
Full text 6,863 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 5 sections · click to expand

Keywords

Endometrium, DUB, Infertility, Quick scoreAbstract

Objective

To study endometrial estrogen and progesterone immunoexpression in different phases of menstrual cycle, in cases of dysfunctional uterine bleeding and infertility. A comparative analysis was also done for calculating ER & PR expression, between two methods: quick score and percentage of immunopositive cells.

Methods

Endometrial biopsies from 107 clinically diagnosed DUB cases and 23 infertile patients were included in the study. Tissue sections were analyzed for different phases of menstrual cycle and immunoexpression of ER & PR receptors was calculated in glandular epithelium and stromal cells, using percentage of positively stained cells and Quick score method. Endometrial sections of hysterectomy specimens of uterovaginal prolapse cases were used as control sections.

Result

In the present analysis, secretory endometrium was the commonest finding histopathologically. Mean total ER & PR expression in cases of DUB was statistically higher in the proliferative phase using both methods (p<0.05). Mean total ER expression difference in both the phases of infertility cases was not statistically significant by the observation of percentage of positively stained cells. However, quick score revealed significant difference between both receptor expression in infertile patients. Conclusion:The percentage of positive cells for ER and PR expression plays a more determinant role in studying ER and PR expression in cases of DUB and infertility as compared to quick score. DOI: 10.21276/APALM.1374

References

2. Dallenbach-Hellweg G. The Endometrium of Infertility. A Review. Pathol Res Pract 1984;178(6):527-37. 3. Chakraborty S, Khurana N, Sharma JB, Chaturvedi KU. Endometrial hormone receptors in women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005;272(1):17-22. 4. Mylonas I, Jeschke U, Shabani N, Kuhn C, Balle A, Kriegel S, et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of estrogen receptor alpha, estrogen receptor beta and progesterone receptor in normal human endometrium. Acta Histochem 2004;106(3):245-52. 5. Chakravarthy VK, Nag U, Rangarao D, Anusha AM. Estrogen and progesterone receptors in dysfunctional uterine bleeding. IOSR-JDMS 2013;4(3):73-6. 6. Gleeson N, Jordan M, Sheppard B, Bonnar J. Cyclical variation in endometrial oestrogen and progesterone receptors in women with normal menstruation and dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;48(3):207-14. 7. Dadhania B, Dhruva G, Agravat A, Pujara K. Histopathological study of endometrium in dysfunctional uterine bleeding. J Int Med Res 2013;2(1):20-4. 8. Gupta A, Rathore AM, Manaktala U, Rudingwa P. Evaluation and histopathological correlation of abnormal uterine bleeding in perimenopausal women. IJBAR 2013;4(8):509-13. 9. Emokpae MA, Uadia PO, Mohammed AZ. Hormonal evaluation and endometrial biopsy in infertile women in Kano, Northern Nigeria: A comparative study. Ann Afr Med 2005;4(3):99-103. 10. Abdullah LS, Bondagji NS. Histopathological pattern of endometrial sampling performed for abnormal uterine bleeding. Bahrain Med Bull 2011;33(4):1-6. 11. Shet T, Agrawal A, Nadkarni M, Palkar M, Havaldar R, Paramar V, et al. Hormone receptors over the last 8 years in a cancer referral center in India: what was and what is?. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2009;52(2):171-4. 12. Press MF, Udove JA, Greene GL. Progesterone receptor distribution in the human endometrium. Analysis using monoclonal antibodies to the human progesterone receptor. Am J Pathol 1988;131(1):112-24. 13. Snijders MP, de Goeij AF, Debets-Te Baerts MJ, Rousch MJ, Koudstaal J, Bosman FT. Immunocytochemical analysis of oestrogen receptors and progesterone receptors in the human uterus throughout the menstrual cycle and after the menopause. J Reprod Fertil 1992;94(2):363—71. 14. Garcia E, Bouchard P, De Brux J, Berdah J, Frydman R, Schaison G, et al. Use of immunocytochemistry of progesterone and estrogen receptors for endometrial dating. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988;67(1):80-7. 15. Shet T, Agrawal A, Nadkarni M, Palkar M, Havaldar R, Paramar V, et al. Hormone receptors over the last 8 years in a cancer referral center in India: what was and what is?. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2009;52(2):171-4. 16. Lessey BA, Killiam AP, Metzger DA, Haney AF, Greene GL, McCarty KS. Immunohistochemical analysis of human uterine estrogen and progesterone receptors throughout the menstrual cycle. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988;67(2):334-40. 17. Gleeson N, Jordan M, Sheppard B, Bonnar J. Cyclical variation in endometrial oestrogen and progesterone receptors in women with normal menstruation and dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;48(3):207-14. 18. Wells CA, Sloane JP, Coleman D, Munt C, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Consistency of staining and reporting of oestrogen receptor immunocytochemistry within the Europian Union: an inter-laboratory study. Virchows Arch 2004;445(2):119-28. 19. Margarit L, Taylor A, Roberts MH, Hopkins L, Davies C, Brenton AG, et al. MUC1 as a descriminator between endometrium from fertile and infertile patients with PCOS and endometriosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95(12):5320-9. 20. Papanikalaou EG, Bourgain C, Kolibianakis E, Tournaye H, Devroey P. Steroid receptor expression in late follicular phase endometrium in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles is already altered, indicating of early luteal phase transformation in the absence of secretory changes. Hum Reprod 2005;20(6):1541-7. Downloads Published Issue Section License Copyright (c) 2017 Brijesh Thakur, Sanjay Kaushik, Sakshi Garg, Sanjeev Kishore This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: - Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. - Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. - Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

infertility

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (1)

References (14)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK