ArticleJournal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR2017
Breast carcinomas with low amplified/equivocal HER2 by Ish: potential supporting role of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification.
Article in Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized pathology report for HER2 testing in compliance with 2023 ASCO/CAP updates and 2023 ESMO consensus statements on HER2-low breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Review
- Improving HER2 testing reproducibility in HER2-low breast cancer.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis is a retrospective cross sectional study aimed to verify whether Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA), a quantitative molecular assay, may represent a valuable reflex test in breast cancer with equivocal HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry and HER2 gene signals/nucleus (s/n) ranging between 4.0 and 5.9 by in situ hybridization.
methodsA series of 170 breast carcinomas scored as 2+ for HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry, were selected from our files and analyzed in parallel by silver in situ hybridization and by MLPA. According to ASCO-CAP 2013 guidelines, 54/170 tumors, displaying 4.0-5.9 HER2 gene s/n, were defined as low amplified (ratio ≥ 2) or equivocal (ratio < 2) on the basis of centromere enumeration probe 17 (CEP17) status. An independent set of 108 score 2+ breast cancers represented the external validation set. Concordance between the two techniques was assessed through the use of Cohen's K statistic.
resultsA concordance rate of 78.2% (Cohen's K statistic: 0,548 95% CI:[0,419-0,677]) between in situ hybridization and MLPA was found in the whole series of 170 cases and of 55.5% (Cohen's K statistic: -0,043 95% CI:[-0,271-0,184]) in the 54 tumors presenting 4.0-5.9 HER2 gene s/n. By MLPA, we found HER2 amplification or gain in 14% of the 21 BC presenting a disomic status and in 18% of the 33 BC presenting a CEP17 > 2.0. These data were further confirmed in the external validation set. Interestingly, the 54 low amplified/equivocal breast carcinomas presented a frequency of hormonal receptor positivity significantly higher than that observed in the amplified tumors and similar to the non-amplified one (p = 0.016 for estrogen receptor and p = 0.001 for progesterone receptor).
conclusionsTo avoid to offer patients an ineffective therapy, HER2 status should be studied more thoroughly in low amplified and equivocal cases which can have lower response rates and shorter time to progression to trastuzumab. In this context, our data indicate that MLPA may be a reliable, objective supporting test in selecting HER2 positive breast cancer patients.
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.