ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2017
Agreement of Different Methods for Tissue Based Detection of HER2 Signal in Invasive Breast Cancer.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computer-aided scoring ofJournal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality amongst American women. The HER2 gene encodes a cell surface receptor that affects cell proliferation and has been recognized as a diagnostic factor in treatment selection for invasive breast cancer. Examine accuracy in HER2 detection between manual count, computer assisted, and automated tiling algorithm. 42 randomly selected invasive breast cancer specimens were enumerated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)for HER2 and CEP17 markers using the Vysis HER2 assay (AbbotLaboratory, North Chicago, IL). Specimens were tested using three methods: Manual, computer assisted nuclei selection (Tissue FISH MetaSystems, Newton, MA), and automated enumeration (MetaSystems, Newton, MA). The greatest bias and widest agreement limits for HER2 and CEP17 were seen in Automatic versus Manual, the gold standard. HER2 values greater than 6 possessed the greatest bias and widest agreement limits. CEP17 comparison showed similar bias and agreement limits for each comparison. Kappa values indicated good agreement for all methods although Tissue FISH and Manual possessed better agreement. Higher agreement at lower HER2 & CEP17 count maybe due to fewer chromosomal aberrations, in which selection of field of views has less variation between methods. Alternatively, increased background signals seen in polyploidy may be responsible for the variations in signal count. Manual and Tissue FISH demonstrated good agreement amongst by both Altman Bland and Cohen's Kappa. While the automatic method has good agreement at lower HER2, the sharp increase in variability at higher HER2 counts illustrates a limitation of the automatic method.
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.