ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2015
Comparative study between quantitative digital image analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization of breast cancer equivocal human epidermal growth factor receptors 2 score 2(+) cases.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative Image Analysis of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Immunohistochemistry for Breast Cancer: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2019Guideline
- Prognostic role of HER2 amplification based on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC): a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2016Pooled it
- Her2-Positive Cancers and Antibody-Based Treatment: State of the Art and Future Developments.Cancers · 2021Review
- Color standardization and optimization in whole slide imaging.Clinical and diagnostic pathology · 2020Article
- Immunohistochemical Study of Ezrin Expression in Colorectal Carcinoma: A Comparative Study between Objective Method and Digital Quantitative Assessment.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimization of workflow for breast cancer samples with equivocal human epidermal growth factor receptors 2 (HER2)/neu score 2(+) results in routine practice, remains to be a central focus of the on-going efforts to assess HER2 status. According to the College of American Pathologists/American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines equivocal HER2/neu score 2(+) cases are subject for further testing, usually by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) investigations. It still remains on open question, whether quantitative digital image analysis of HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) stained slides can assist in further refining the HER2 score 2(+). AIM OF THIS WORK: To assess utility of quantitative digital analysis of IHC stained slides and compare its performance to FISH in cases of breast cancer with equivocal HER2 score 2(+). MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen specimens (previously diagnosed as breast cancer and was evaluated as HER 2(-) score 2(+)) represented the study population. Contemporary new cuts were prepared for re-evaluation of HER2 immunohistochemical studies and FISH examination. All the cases were digitally scanned by iScan (Produced by BioImagene [Now Roche-Ventana]). The IHC signals of HER2 were measured using an automated image analyzing system (MECES, www.Diagnomx.eu/meces). Finally, a comparative study was done between the results of the FISH and the quantitative analysis of the virtual slides.
resultsThree out of the 15 cases with equivocal HER2 score 2(+), turned out to be positive (3(+)) by quantitative digital analysis, and 12 were found to be negative in FISH too. Two of these three positive cases proved to be positive with FISH, and only one was negative.
conclusionsQuantitative digital analysis is highly sensitive and relatively specific when compared to FISH in detecting HER2/neu overexpression. Therefore, it represents a potential reliable substitute for FISH in breast cancer cases, which desire further refinement of equivocal IHC results.
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.