Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31065110›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2019

The clinical and biological significance of HER2 over-expression in breast ductal carcinoma in situ: a large study from a single institution.

Islam M Miligy, Michael S Toss, Kylie L Gorringe, Andrew H S Lee, Ian O Ellis, Andrew R Green, Emad A Rakha

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Prognostic and Predictive Value of HER2 Expression in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS Randomized Trial.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Acta biochimica et biophysica Sinica · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Breast cancer vaccines for treatment and prevention.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022
    Review
  16. Low-risk DCIS. What is it? Observe or excise?Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Islam M MiligyNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Nottingham City Hospital, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Michael S TossNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Nottingham City Hospital, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kylie L GorringeCancer Genomics Program, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Andrew H S LeeNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Nottingham City Hospital, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ian O EllisNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Nottingham City Hospital, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Andrew R GreenNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Nottingham City Hospital, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Emad A RakhaNottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, Nottingham City Hospital, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. emad.rakha@nottingham.ac.uk.
University of Nottingham · GBNottingham City Hospital · GBMenoufia University · EGUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have reported up to 50% of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), is HER2 positive, but the frequency of HER2-positive invasive breast cancer (IBC) is lower. The aim of this study is to characterise HER2 status in DCIS and assess its prognostic value.

methodsHER2 status was evaluated in a large series of DCIS (n = 868), including pure DCIS and DCIS associated with IBC, prepared as tissue microarrays (TMAs). HER2 status was assessed using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH).

resultsIn pure DCIS, HER2 protein was over-expressed in 9% of DCIS (3+), whereas 15% were HER2 equivocal (2+). Using CISH, the final HER2 status was positive in 20%. In mixed DCIS, HER2 amplification of the DCIS component was detected in 15% with amplification in the invasive component of only 12%. HER2-positive DCIS was associated with features of aggressiveness (p < 0.0001) and more frequent local recurrence (p = 0.03). On multivariate analysis, combined HER2+/Ki67+ profile was an independent predictor of local recurrence (p = 0.006).

conclusionsThe frequency of HER2 positivity in DCIS is comparable to IBC- and HER2-positive DCIS is associated with features of poor prognosis. The majority of HER2 over-expression in DCIS is driven by gene amplification.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryIn Situ HybridizationRetrospective StudiesTissue Array AnalysisERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

Identifiers

PMID31065110
PMCPMC6738110
OpenAlexW2944273117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.