ArticleCancer cytopathology2020
Hormone receptor and HER2 assessment in breast carcinoma metastatic to bone: A comparison between FNA cell blocks and decalcified core needle biopsies.
Article in Cancer cytopathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardizing the pathologic assessment of HER2-(ultra)low breast cancer: insights from a national Italian project.Pathologica · 2025Article
- Estrogen Receptor-targeted PET Imaging for Breast Cancer.Radiology · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEstrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemistry (IHC) guide the clinical management of breast cancer metastases. Decalcification of bone core needle biopsies (CNBs) can affect IHC. In the current study, the authors sought to define whether fine-needle aspiration (FNA) would be a better alternative to CNB for reliable IHC.
methodsPatients with breast cancer metastases to bone that were sampled by both CNB and FNA were selected. ER, PR, and HER2 were performed in FNA cell blocks (FNA-CBs) and concurrent decalcified CNBs. Discrepancies were classified as minor when there was a difference of up to 30% nuclear staining in IHC for ER and PR between paired samples and as major when a clinically relevant change was observed (ie, positive vs negative). Quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction of ESR1 messenger RNA levels was performed on FNA/CNB pairs with discrepancies for ER IHC. IHC status of the primary breast carcinoma was recorded.
resultsConcordance rates for ER, PR, and HER2 were 89%, 67%, and 93%, respectively, between FNA-CB and CNB pairs from 27 patients. Major discrepancies were noted in approximately 11% of FNA/CNB pairs for ER IHC and in 33% of FNA/CNB pairs for PR. ESR1 messenger RNA levels of FNA/CNB matched samples were similar and did not explain the differences in ER IHC expression in the majority of cases. Two of 27 FNA/CNB pairs had different results for HER2 IHC that changed from negative on CNB to equivocal (2+) on FNA-CB. Both cases had prior HER2 amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization.
conclusionsFNA-CB and CNB appear to constitute acceptable methods for the assessment of ER, PR, and HER2 for clinical decision making.
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.