Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30585668›Full record

ArticleHistopathology2019

What is the added value of digital image analysis of HER2 immunohistochemistry in breast cancer in clinical practice? A study with multiple platforms.

Timco Koopman, Henk J Buikema, Harry Hollema, Geertruida H de Bock, Bert van der Vegt

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Histopathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Timco KoopmanDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5695-0126
Henk J BuikemaDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Harry HollemaDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Geertruida H de BockDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Bert van der VegtDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2613-1506
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWe aimed to compare digital image analysis (DIA) of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemistry (IHC) in breast cancer by two platforms: (i) to validate DIA against standard diagnostics; and (ii) to evaluate the added value of DIA in clinical practice. METHODS AND

resultsHER2 IHC and in-situ hybridisation (ISH) were performed on 152 consecutive invasive breast carcinomas. IHC scores were determined with DIA using two independent platforms. Manual scoring was performed by two independent observers. HER2 status was considered positive in 3+ and ISH-positive 2+ cases. HER2 status using DIA was compared to HER2 status with standard diagnostics (manual scoring with ISH in 2+ cases). Interplatform agreement of IHC scores was 'moderate' (linear weighted κ = 0.58), agreement between manual scoring and platform A was 'moderate' (κ = 0.60) and between manual scoring and platform B 'almost perfect' (κ = 0.85). Compared to manual scoring, DIA resulted in a reduction of 2+ cases from 17.1 to 1.3% with platform A and from 17.1 to 15.8% with platform B. However, compared to standard diagnostics, there were three false-negative cases with DIA using platform A [81.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value (PPV), 97.8% negative predictive value (NPV)]. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 100% with DIA using platform B.

conclusionsDIA of HER2 IHC is a valid tool in determining HER2 status in breast carcinoma. Algorithms in different platforms can behave differently, and optimal calibration is essential. In clinical practice, DIA offers an objective alternative to manual scoring, but a reduction in 2+ cases could result in loss of sensitivity.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImmunohistochemistrySensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinasesbreast cancerdigital image analysis (DIA)human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)immunohistochemistry (IHC)

Identifiers

PMID30585668
PMCPMC6850320
OpenAlexW2905760710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.