ArticleBMC cancer2016
Technical validation of an RT-qPCR in vitro diagnostic test system for the determination of breast cancer molecular subtypes by quantification of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR and MKI67 mRNA levels from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast tumor specimens.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the prognostic value of CD3, CD8, and FOXP3 mRNA expression in early-stage breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2018Trial
- An international reproducibility study validating quantitative determination of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR, and MKI67 mRNA in breast cancer using MammaTyper®.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2017Trial
- Advancing breast cancer treatment through dual targeting CAR T cell therapy.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Advances in Molecular Diagnostics and Targeted Therapeutic Approaches in HER-2 Positive Breast Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Review
- Intertumoral heterogeneity of bifocal breast cancer: a morphological and molecular study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Analytical validation and algorithm improvement of HepatoPredict kit to assess hepatocellular carcinoma prognosis before a liver transplantation.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Immunohistochemistry versus PCR Technology for Molecular Subtyping of Breast Cancer: Multicentered Expereinces from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Journal of cancer prevention · 2023Article
- The Evolution of Ki-67 and Breast Carcinoma: Past Observations, Present Directions, and Future Considerations.Cancers · 2023Review
- XPERTEcancermedicalscience · 2023Article
- Prediction of Response to Cisplatin-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients by Molecular Subtyping including KRT and FGFR Target Gene Assessment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- A new paradigm for leprosy diagnosis based on host gene expression.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
- Reproducibility of mRNA-Based Testing ofCancers · 2021Article
- Prognostic Impact of Immunoglobulin Kappa C (Cancers · 2021Article
- Looking for more reliable biomarkers in breast cancer: Comparison between routine methods and RT-qPCR.PloS one · 2021Article
- Tumor Microenvironment Subtypes and Immune-Related Signatures for the Prognosis of Breast Cancer.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Correlation of HPV16 Gene Status and Gene Expression With Antibody Seropositivity and TIL Status in OPSCC.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Identification of potential biomarkers and candidate small molecule drugs in glioblastoma.Cancer cell international · 2020Article
- Observational
- Androgen Receptor mRNA Expression in Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder: A Retrospective Analysis of Two Independent Cohorts.Translational oncology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMammaTyper is a novel CE-marked in vitro diagnostic RT-qPCR assay which assigns routinely processed breast cancer specimens into the molecular subtypes Luminal A-like, Luminal B-like (HER2 positive or negative), HER2 positive (non-luminal) and Triple negative (ductal) according to the mRNA expression of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR and MKI67 and the St Gallen consensus surrogate clinical definition. Until now and regarding formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material (FFPE), this has been a task mostly accomplished by immunohistochemistry (IHC). However the discrepancy rates of IHC for the four breast cancer biomarkers are frequently under debate, especially for Ki-67 which carries the highest degree of inter- and even intra-observer variability. Herein we describe a series of studies in FFPE specimens which aim to fully validate the analytical performance of the MammaTyper assay, including the site to site reproducibility of the individual marker measurements.
methodsTumor RNA was extracted with the novel RNXtract RNA extraction kit. Synthetic RNA was used to assess the sensitivity of the RNXtract kit. DNA and RNA specific qPCR assays were used so as to determine analyte specificity of RNXtract. For the assessment of limit of blank, limit of detection, analytical measurement range and PCR efficiency of the MammaTyper kit serial dilutions of samples were used. Analytical precision studies of MammaTyper were built around two different real time PCR platforms and involved breast tumor samples belonging to different subtypes analyzed across multiple sites and under various stipulated conditions. The MammaTyper assay robustness was tested against RNA input variations, alternative extraction methods and tumor cell content.
resultsIndividual assays were linear up to at least 32.33 and 33.56 Cqs (quantification cycles) for the two qPCR platforms tested. PCR efficiency ranged from 99 to 109 %. In qPCR platform 1, estimates for assay specific inter-site standard deviations (SD) were between 0.14 and 0.20 Cqs accompanied by >94 % concordant single marker assignments for all four markers. In platform 2, the inter-site SD estimates were between 0.40 and 0.66 Cqs while the concordance for single marker assignments was >94 % for all four markers. The agreement reached between the two qPCR systems located in one site was 100 % for ERBB2, 96.9 % for ESR1, 97.2 % for PGR and 98.6 % for MKI67. RT-qPCR for individual markers was stable up to a 64-fold dilution for a typical clinical sample. There was no change in assay performance detected at the level of individual markers or subtypes after using different RNA isolation methods. The presence of up to 80 % of surrounding non-tumor tissue including in situ carcinoma did not affect the assay output. Sixteen out of 20 RNXtract eluates yielded more than 50 ng/μl of RNA (average RNA output: 233 ng/μl), whereas DNA contamination per sample was restricted to less than 15 ng/μl. Median recovery rate of RNA extraction was 91.0 %.
conclusionsIn this study the performance characteristics of MammaTyper were successfully validated. The various sources of analytical perturbations resulted in negligible variations in individual marker assessments. Therefore, MammaTyper may serve as a technical improvement to current standards for decentralized FFPE-based routine assessment of the commonly used breast cancer biomarkers and for molecular subtyping of breast cancer specimens.
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.