ArticlePloS one2013
Added value of HER-2 amplification testing by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification in invasive breast cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast carcinomas with low amplified/equivocal HER2 by Ish: potential supporting role of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2017Article
- Quantification of HER family receptors in breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHER-2 is a prognostic and predictive marker, but as yet no technique is perfectly able to identify patients likely to benefit from HER-2 targeted therapies. We aimed to prospectively assess the added value of first-line co-testing by IHC, and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH).
methodsAs local validation, HER-2 MLPA and CISH were compared in 99 breast cancers. Next, we reviewed 937 invasive breast cancers, from 4 Dutch pathology laboratories, that were prospectively assessed for HER-2 by IHC and MLPA (and CISH in selected cases).
resultsThe validation study demonstrated 100% concordance between CISH and MLPA, if both methods were assessable and conclusive (81.8% of cases). Significant variation regarding percentages IHC 0/1+ and 2+ cases was observed between the laboratories (p<0.0001). Overall concordance between IHC and MLPA/CISH was 98.1% (575/586) (Kappa = 0.94). Of the IHC 3+ cases, 6.7% failed to reveal gene amplification, whereas 0.8% of the IHC 0/1+ cases demonstrated gene amplification. Results remained discordant after retrospective review in 3/11 discordant cases. In the remaining 8 cases the original IHC score was incorrect or adapted after repeated IHC staining.
conclusionsMLPA is a low-cost and quantitative high-throughput technique with near perfect concordance with CISH. The use of MLPA in routinely co-testing all breast cancers may reduce HER-2 testing variation between laboratories, may serve as quality control for IHC, will reveal IHC 0/1+ patients with gene amplification, likely responsive to trastuzumab, and identify IHC 3+ cases without gene amplification that may respond less well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.