Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27716627›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2016

Precise ERBB2 copy number assessment in breast cancer by means of molecular inversion probe array analysis.

Matthias Christgen, Jana L van Luttikhuizen, Mieke Raap, Peter Braubach, Lars Schmidt, Danny Jonigk, Friedrich Feuerhake, Ulrich Lehmann, Brigitte Schlegelberger, Hans H Kreipe and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Cancer medicine journal · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthias ChristgenInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Jana L van LuttikhuizenInstitute of Human Genetics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Mieke RaapInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Peter BraubachInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Lars SchmidtInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Danny JonigkInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Friedrich FeuerhakeInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Ulrich LehmannInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Brigitte SchlegelbergerInstitute of Human Genetics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Hans H KreipeInstitute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Doris SteinemannInstitute of Human Genetics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Gene AmplificationGene DosageMolecular Probe TechniquesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMiddle AgedOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinasesbreast cancercopy number profilingHER2/ERBB2next generation sequencingOncoScan

Identifiers

PMID27716627
PMCPMC5347728
OpenAlexW2528140092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.