Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2017
Discrepancies in central review re-testing of patients with ER-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer in the OPTIMA prelim randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation of ER, PR, and HER2 at the protein and mRNA levels in Asian patients with operable breast cancer.Bioscience reports · 2022Article
- A Novel Data Analytics-derived Metric (Nearest Cluster Distance) Is Easily Implemented in Routine Practice and Correctly Identifies Breast Cancer Cases for Quality Review.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
- Observational
- Suboptimal concordance in testing and retesting results of triple-negative breast carcinoma cases among laboratories: one institution experience.Cancer cell international · 2019Article
- A Root Cause Analysis Into the High Error Rate in Clinical Immunohistochemistry.Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited data on results of central re-testing of samples from patients with invasive breast cancer categorised in their local hospital laboratories as oestrogen receptor (ER) positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor homologue 2 (HER2) negative.
methodsThe Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multiparameter Analysis preliminary study (OPTIMA prelim) was the feasibility phase of a randomised controlled trial to validate the use of multiparameter assay-directed chemotherapy decisions in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Eligibility criteria included ER positivity and HER2 negativity. Central re-testing of receptor status was mandatory.
resultsOf the 431 patients tested centrally, discrepant results between central and local laboratory results were identified in only 19 (4.4%; 95% confidence interval 2.5-6.3%) patients (with 21 tumours). On central review, seven patients had cancers that were ER-negative (1.6%) and 13 (3.0%) patients with 15 tumours had HER2-positive disease, including one tumour discrepant for both biomarkers.
conclusionsCentral re-testing of receptor status of invasive breast cancers in the UK NHS setting shows a high level of reproducibility in categorising tumours as ER-positive and HER2-negative, and raises questions regarding the cost effectiveness and clinical value of central re-testing in this sub-group of breast cancers in this setting.
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.