Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27348626›Full record

ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2016

Automated measurement of estrogen receptor in breast cancer: a comparison of fluorescent and chromogenic methods of measurement.

Elizabeth R Zarrella, Madeline Coulter, Allison W Welsh, Daniel E Carvajal, Kurt A Schalper, Malini Harigopal, David L Rimm, Veronique M Neumeister

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Introduction to digital pathology and computer-aided pathology.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2020
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. PD-L1 Expression in Melanoma: A Quantitative Immunohistochemical Antibody Comparison.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth R ZarrellaDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Madeline CoulterDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Allison W WelshDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Daniel E CarvajalDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Kurt A SchalperDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Malini HarigopalDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
David L RimmDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Veronique M NeumeisterDepartment of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Yale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
INSTITUTIONAL NATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE AWARDT32GM007324 · NIGMS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI BENNETT, ANTON M · 1987 to 2022
$6.2M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007324
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whereas FDA-approved methods of assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) are 'fit for purpose', they represent a 30-year-old technology. New quantitative methods, both chromogenic and fluorescent, have been developed and studies have shown that these methods increase the accuracy of assessment of ER. Here, we compare three methods of ER detection and assessment on two retrospective tissue microarray (TMA) cohorts of breast cancer patients: estimates of percent nuclei positive by pathologists and by Aperio's nuclear algorithm (standard chromogenic immunostaining), and immunofluorescence as quantified with the automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) method of quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF). Reproducibility was excellent (R(2)>0.95) between users for both automated analysis methods, and the Aperio and QIF scoring results were also highly correlated, despite the different detection systems. The subjective readings show lower levels of reproducibility and a discontinuous, bimodal distribution of scores not seen by either mechanized method. Kaplan-Meier analysis of 10-year disease-free survival was significant for each method (Pathologist, P=0.0019; Aperio, P=0.0053, AQUA, P=0.0026); however, there were discrepancies in patient classification in 19 out of 233 cases analyzed. Out of these, 11 were visually positive by both chromogenic and fluorescent detection. In 10 cases, the Aperio nuclear algorithm labeled the nuclei as negative; in 1 case, the AQUA score was just under the cutoff for positivity (determined by an Index TMA). In contrast, 8 out of 19 discrepant cases had clear nuclear positivity by fluorescence that was unable to be visualized by chromogenic detection, perhaps because of low positivity masked by the hematoxylin counterstain. These results demonstrate that automated systems enable objective, precise quantification of ER. Furthermore, immunofluorescence detection offers the additional advantage of a signal that cannot be masked by a counterstaining agent. These data support the usage of automated methods for measurement of this and other biomarkers that may be used in companion diagnostic tests.

Indexed as

Automation, LaboratoryBreast NeoplasmsChromogenic CompoundsFluorescenceFluorescent Antibody TechniqueFluorescent DyesHumansImmunohistochemistryKaplan-Meier EstimatePrognosisReceptors, EstrogenReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesTissue Array AnalysisChromogenic CompoundsFluorescent DyesReceptors, Estrogen

Identifiers

PMID27348626
PMCPMC5008858
OpenAlexW2463608075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.