ArticleOncotarget2016
Precise ERBB2 copy number assessment in breast cancer by means of molecular inversion probe array analysis.
Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- An international virtual hackathon to build tools for the analysis of structural variants within species ranging from coronaviruses to vertebrates.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Article
- 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
- Subclonal analysis in a lobular breast cancer with classical and solid growth pattern mimicking a solid-papillary carcinoma.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2017Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HER2/ERBB2 amplification/overexpression determines the eligibility of breast cancer patients to HER2-targeted therapy. This study evaluates the agreement between ERBB2 copy number assessment by fluorescence in situ hybridization, a standard method recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP), and newly available DNA extraction-based methods. A series of n=29 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast cancers were subjected to ERBB2 copy number assessment by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH, Vysis, Abbott). Following macrodissection of invasive breast cancer tissue and DNA extraction, ERBB2 copy number was also determined by molecular inversion probe array analysis (MIP, OncoScan, Affymetrix) and next generation sequencing combined with normalized amplicon coverage analysis (NGS/NAC, AmpliSeq, Ion Torrent). ERBB2 copy number values obtained by MIP or NGS/NAC were tightly correlated with ERBB2 copy number values obtained by conventional FISH (rs = 0.940 and rs = 0.894, P < 0.001). Using ASCO/CAP guideline-conform thresholds for categorization of breast cancers as HER2-negative, equivocal or positive, nearly perfect concordance was observed for HER2 classification by FISH and MIP (93% concordant classifications, κ = 0.87). Substantial concordance was observed for FISH and NGS/NAC (83% concordant classifications, κ = 0.62). In conclusion, MIP facilitates precise ERBB2 copy number detection and should be considered as an ancillary method for clinical HER2 testing.
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.