Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20697093›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2010

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 assessment in a case-control study: comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction performed by central laboratories.

Frederick L Baehner, Ninah Achacoso, Tara Maddala, Steve Shak, Charles P Quesenberry, Lynn C Goldstein, Allen M Gown, Laurel A Habel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Assessment ofHealth science reports · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Frederick L BaehnerUniversity of California, San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero St, Rm R200, San Francisco, CA 94063, USA. rbaehner@genomichealth.com
Ninah Achacoso
Tara Maddala
Steve Shak
Charles P Quesenberry
Lynn C Goldstein
Allen M Gown
Laurel A Habel
Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimal method to assess human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status remains highly controversial. Before reporting patient HER2 results, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidelines mandate that laboratories demonstrate ≥ 95% concordance to another approved laboratory or methodology. Here, we compare central laboratory HER2 assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using Oncotype DX in lymph node-negative, chemotherapy-untreated patients from a large Kaiser Permanente case-control study. PATIENTS AND

methodsBreast cancer specimens from the Kaiser-Genomic Health study were examined. Central FISH assessment of HER2 amplification and polysomy 17 was conducted by PhenoPath Laboratories (ratios > 2.2, 1.8 to 2.2, and < 1.8 define HER2 positive, HER2 equivocal, and HER2 negative, respectively). HER2 expression by RT-PCR was conducted using Oncotype DX by Genomic Health (normalized expression units ≥ 11.5, 10.7 to < 11.5, and < 10.7 define HER2 positive, HER2 equivocal, and HER2 negative, respectively). Concordance analyses followed ASCO/CAP guidelines.

resultsHER2 concordance by central FISH and central RT-PCR was 97% (95% CI, 96% to 99%). Twelve percent (67 of 568 patients) and 11% (60 of 568 patients) of patients were HER2 positive by RT-PCR and FISH, respectively. HER2-positive patients had increased odds of dying from breast cancer compared with HER2-negative patients. Polysomy 17 was demonstrated in 12.5% of all patients and 33% of FISH-positive patients. Nineteen of 20 FISH-positive patients with polysomy 17 were also RT-PCR HER2 positive. Although not statistically significantly different, HER2-positive/polysomy 17 patients tended to have the worst prognosis, followed by HER2-positive/eusomic, HER2-negative/polysomy 17, and HER2-negative/eusomic patients.

conclusionThere is a high degree of concordance between central FISH and quantitative RT-PCR using Oncotype DX for HER2 status, and the assay warrants additional study in a trastuzumab-treated population.

Indexed as

AdultBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCaliforniaCase-Control StudiesChromosomes, Human, Pair 17Erb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceLaboratoriesLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedPathology, ClinicalBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

Identifiers

PMID20697093
OpenAlexW2157214529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.