ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2018
Evaluating
Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2018. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- HER2/positive and HER2/low in inflammatory breast cancer recurrence.Journal of medicine and life · 2022Article
- Chromogenic In Situ Hybridization (CISH) as a Method for Detection of C-Myc Amplification in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tumor Tissue: An Update.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Potential of modern circulating cell-free DNA diagnostic tools for detection of specific tumour cells in clinical practice.Biochemia medica · 2020Review
- Predicting Effects of Clinicopathological Variables onIranian journal of pathology · 2020Article
- Validation of an automated chromogenic in situ hybridization protocol for detection of cytomegalovirus in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded renal graft biopsies.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with breast cancer,
aimThe current study is conducted in order to investigate whether using CISH is a better method comparison to IHC method for determines HER2 expression in patients with breast cancer in.
methodsIn this cross-sectional descriptive analytical study, information of 44 female patients with invasive ductal breast cancer were gathered from Imam Reza and Omid Hospital in Mashhad. IHC staining was done for all patients in order to determine the level of HER2 expression, and after scoring them into 4 groups of 0, +1, +2 and +3, CISH staining was carried out for all 4 groups. At the end, results from both methods were statistically evaluated using SPSS software V.22.0.
resultsThe average age of patients was 50.2 with the standard deviation of 10.96. Using IHC method was observed that 2.6% (1 patient), 26.3% (10 patients), 65.8% (25 patients) and 5.3% (2 patients) percentage of patients had scores of 0, +1, +2 and +3. On the other hand, CISH method showed 36 patients (90%) with no amplifications and 4 (10%) with sever amplifications. In a comparative study using Fisher's exact test (p = 0.000), we found a significant relation between IHC method and CISH method indicating that all patients showing severe amplifications in CISH method, owned scores of +2 and +3 in IHC method.
conclusionAccording to the present study and comparing the results with similar previous studies, it can be concluded that CISH method works highly effective in determining HER2 expression level in patients with breast cancer. This method is also able to determine the status of patients with score +2 in IHC for their treatment with herceptin.
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.