ArticleThe journal of breast health2015
Problems In Determining Her2 Status In Breast Carcinoma.
Article in The journal of breast health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) oncoprotein is overexpressed in 15-25% of breast carcinomas and associated with poor outcome. Assessment of HER2 status accurately is important to select patients who will benefit from targeted therapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were used to determine the HER2 status in 308 breast carcinoma cases of which 129 were consultation. The major problems in determining HER2 status and the reasons of discordant results between methods were discussed.
resultsHER2 expression was (-) in 124, (+) in 29, (++) in 92, (+++) in 63 cases. 25 of 76 cases consulted as (++) were evaluated as (++) and 15 of 35 cases consulted as (+++) were evaluated as (+++). HER2 amplification was found in 88 (28.6%) of 308 cases by FISH. 3 of 124 (-), 1 of 29 (+), 22 of 92 (++), 62 of 63 (+++) cases were amplified by FISH. The relation between HER2 expression and amplification was statistically significant (p<0.001). Centromere 17 (CEN 17) region amplification was noted in 11 cases of which 2 were (+++), 9 were (++). 6 of the 11 cases showed focal low level, 1 of them showed diffuse high level amplification.
conclusionThe concordance rate between IHC (+++) cases and FISH was 95.4% for consultation cases, 100% for our cases. The final concordance rate for both case groups was 98.4%. The possible reasons of discrepancy were triple negativity, preanalytical and analytical procedures of consultation cases and trucut samples.
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.