['Estrogen receptor (ER) expression is routinely assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in breast carcinoma. Our study compares visual scoring of ER in invasive breast cancer by histopathologists to quantitation of staining using a fully automated system.', 'A tissue microarray was constructed from 4,049 cases (3,484 included in analysis) of invasive breast carcinoma linked to treatment and outcome information. Slides were scored independently by two pathologists and scores were dichotomised, with ER positivity recognized at a cut-off of >1% positive nuclei. The slides were scanned and analyzed with an Ariol automated system.', 'Using data dichotomised as ER positive or negative, both visual and automated scores were highly consistent: there was excellent concordance between two pathologists (kappa = 0.918 (95%CI: 0.903-0.932)) and between two Ariol machines (kappa = 0.913 (95%CI: 0.897-0.928)). The prognostic significance of ER positivity was similar whether determined by pathologist or automated scoring for both the entire patient cohort and subsets of patients treated with tamoxifen alone or receiving no systemic adjuvant therapy. The optimal cut point for the automated scores using breast cancer disease-specific survival as an endpoint was >0.4% positive nuclei. The concordance between dextran-coated charcoal ER biochemical assay data and automated scores (kappa = 0.728 (95%CI: 0.69-0.75); 0.74 (95%CI: 0.71-0.77)) was similar to the concordance between biochemical assay and pathologist scores (kappa = 0.72 (95%CI: 0.70-0.75; 0.70 (95%CI: 0.67-0.72)).'] Does automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma differ from expert pathologist scoring : a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases?