Estrogen Receptive versus Estrogen Positive....What is the difference?

After speaking with my oncologist she told me that a test was done and that I am estrogen receptive and that that is a good thing.
My neighbor, who had breast cancer over 5 years ago and is doing very well, was told that she is estrogen positive and that that was not a good thing.
What is the difference?
Thanks,
Rosalie

Hi Rosalie,

Estrogen receptors are what estrogen binds to in order to exert its biological effects.

In short, the more estrogen receptors present in a cell, the more likely it is that ANTI-estrogen drugs such as tamoxifen will successfully be able to fight off the cancer. A high number of estrogen receptors= ER positive. A low number = ER negative.

Does that make sense?

Rosalie,
Here's a crash course in cancer biology...
In a normal cell there are mechanisms in place to assure that the cell does not acquire too much genetic damage. Genes get damaged all the time from exposures in the environment, etc. But there are mechanisms in place that fix the damage or make the cell die if too much damage has accumulated. There are numerous backup systems in place for this. When some of those systems fail, then genetic damage doesn't get fixed, the cell doesn't die, and it continues to divide and multiply resulting in more messed up cells like it with more and more genetic damage. In the beginning the cell looks a lot like a healthy cell (model citizen) of it's type, but over time the cells start to look less and less like it as they accumulate more damage (become criminal). Cancer is born. This explains how cancers are "graded." The higher the grade, the less the cell looks like it's normal counterpart, and the more aggressive it can be. The high grade cell is a renagade, it does not abide by any rules... it does what it wants and that's why treatment is so difficult at these later stages.

All cells have receptors that respond to specific chemical signals. Breast, ovarian, uterine, etc, cells all have progesterone and estrogen receptors. This is how they respond to signals given by our body's progesterone and estrogen hormones. Sometimes the signal these hormones give to the receptor gets interpreted by the cell to grow, and other times the signal is to die. In the early stages of uterine cancer for example, progesterone is given to signal the renagade cells to shape up or die, causing the early cancer to disappear. Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors are other medications that manipulate the estrogen signal and cause the cells to die. But as you see, in order for these cells to accept the signal, they have to have receptors on their surface to pick up the signal the medication is giving them. It's like your mailbox... you won't get mail if you don't have one. No receptor, the signal doesn't get through, the medication is not effective.
So that fact that you have estrogen receptors on the surface of your cancer cells is a good thing because 1) they have not become too aggressive and 2) they will respond to chemical signaling from the medications your doctor will prescribe to make any left over cancer cells die.
So the best analogy I can come up with is the receptor on the cell surface is like your mailbox. You have a mailbox that accepts estrogen packages. Your doctors will deliver your cancer cells a package that looks like estrogen but has a bomb in it that will surprise the cancer cell and annihilate it once it opens it. If the cancer cell didn't have an estrogen mailbox, it couldn't accept the package. The rest of your body's healthy cells don't have an estrogen mailbox, so they won't be affected. The healthy cells that have an estrogen mailbox have a security system to detect or are able to contain the damage.

Hope this makes sense. Either way you look at it, sounds like you have cancer cells that will get the point and take a hike!
Best wishes to you. Take care.
-millie

(((Millie))), that explanation was brilliant. I hope the hostesses catch it and add it into the Resources database!

Great questions, (((Rosalie))),



Audrey

I agree...Millie that was a wonderful explanation.
I teach Kindergarten so I need simple explanations about things. LOL
I hope that after reviewing my cat scan on Monday my oncologist and her colleague from Sloan Kettering will be able to come up with something encouraging.
Thanks
Rosalie

Millie, I wish you had been my math teacher all through life. I may have turned out to be a genius, rather than someone with math anxiety!(even though this isn't math)

Definitely a lot better than my attempt!

Rosalie,
Do you have breast cancer or something else? Can you give us a little reminder of what you have, your treatment, etc?

Sorry for my poor memory,
Janie

Jane,
I have ovarian cancer.
Had a hyst in april 2002. Completed 6 rounds of taxol/carbo. Was in a good remission for 21 months after ending chemo.
Had a recurrance in Sept. 2004 with a second surgery in October 2004. Completed two rounds of taxol/carbo again but it was working correctly. Doctor switched me to Gemzar and Carbo which did work very well for a while. Finished that treatment about May of 2005 and then in August 2005 had another recurrance. Started on Doxil and had 4 treatments. Doxil did not seem to work and that now brings us up to date.
How did we know things were not working? MY ca125 number leaps up very high but my cat scans show nothing with nothing. It is all microscopic cells dividing.
Hence, another cat scan on Monday to see if anything has changed, what is happening, and deciding on a new course of treatments.
Well, that is me in a nutshell.
Rosalie

Rosalie,
You have really been through it. To Hell and back. Was your stage a IIIC?

Maybe you could make one of those nifty signatures so that forgettful people like me don't have to keep asking you the same questions, over and over.

What's the next plan of attack?! I sure hope they find a winner this time that will zap those nasty cells quickly and permanently!

Janie