ArticleJournal of breast cancer2020
Impact of the Updated Guidelines on Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Testing in Breast Cancer.
Article in Journal of breast cancer, 2020. 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.
- Impact of immunohistochemistry staining conditions on the incidence of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Article
- Updates on breast biomarkers.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn 2007, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists had established a human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing guideline, which was updated in 2013 and subsequently in 2018. We assessed the clinical impact of the recent update by comparing the
methodsWe assessed 2 cohorts. The first cohort included 1,161 primary invasive breast cancer (IBC) samples including 18 bilateral IBC cases, with both immunohistochemistry (IHC) and silver-enhanced ISH (SISH) results available for the HER2 status. The second cohort included 160 IBC cases with equivocal HER2 IHC, assessed using SISH. We retrospectively evaluated and compared the HER2 SISH results.
resultsThere were 22 (1.9%) and 20 (12.5%) cases with altered SISH results according to the 2013 guidelines in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. As per the 2018 guidelines, final HER2 statuses of 16 (1.4%) and 14 (8.5%) cases changed in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. The 2013 guidelines increased the positive rate compared to the 2007 guidelines, in both cohorts (0.6% and 6.2%, respectively). Most equivocal cases in cohorts 1 (92.3%) and 2 (100%) as per the 2013 guidelines were reclassified as HER2-negative according to the 2018 guidelines. The 2018 guidelines increased the negative rates (1.3% in cohort 1 and 8.7% in cohort 2) and slightly decreased the positive rates (-0.2% in cohort 1 and -3.1% in cohort 2), compared to the 2013 guidelines. With each update, minor changes in the positive and negative rates were observed in whole breast cancer samples (cohort 1). However, the 2018 guidelines affected previously defined HER2-positive IBC with equivocal IHC results.
conclusionUnder the 2013 guidelines, the positive and equivocal cases increased. However, the 2018 guidelines eliminated ambiguous cases by reclassifying them as HER2-negative.
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.