Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33585986›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2021

Concordance of the molecular subtype classification between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen in primary breast cancer.

M Pölcher, M Braun, M Tischitz, M Hamann, N Szeterlak, A Kriegmair, C Brambs, C Becker, O Stoetzer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M PölcherDepartment of Gynecology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany. martin.poelcher@swmbrk.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8126-8196
M BraunDepartment of Gynecology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany.
M TischitzDepartment of Gynecology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany.
M HamannDepartment of Gynecology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany.
N SzeterlakDepartment of Gynecology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany.
A KriegmairDepartment of Gynecology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Taxisstraße 3, 80637, Munich, Germany.
C BrambsSchool of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
C BeckerDepartment of Pathology, Rotkreuzklinikum München, Winthirstraße 11, 80639, Munich, Germany.
O StoetzerMVZ (Ambulatort Health Care Center) for Hematology and Oncology, Winthirstraße 11, 80639, Munich, Germany.
Rotkreuzklinikum München · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMolecular profiling of breast cancer (BC) classifies several intrinsic subtypes based on different patterns of gene expression. Multigene assays estimate the risk of recurrence and help to select high-risk patients for adjuvant chemotherapy. However, these tests are associated with significant costs. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) offers a surrogate classification for molecular subtypes by determining estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR), human epidermal growth factor (Her2neu), as well as the proliferation marker Ki67. Core needle biopsy (CNB) is well established in BC diagnosis and allows a pre-operative assessment of biomarkers. The aim of this study was to analyze the concordance of these markers between CNB and surgical specimens to assess whether re-testing of the surgical specimen is mandatory. MATERIALS AND

methodsWithin a 3-year period, patients with primary BC and paired samples of CNB and surgical specimens were analyzed retrospectively. Concordance rates of ER, PR, Her2neu, Ki67, and the surrogate classification for molecular subtypes were calculated using the Landis and Koch agreement grades.

resultsOut of 2254 patients with primary breast cancer, 1307 paired specimens without pre-operative treatment were available for analysis Concordance rates for ER, PR, Her2neu, and Ki67 status showed substantial-to-almost perfect agreement grades (κ = 0.91, 0.75, 0.89, and 0.61, respectively). Though substantial concordance was also found for the subtype classification (κ = 0.70), the molecular subtype changed in 18.5% of patients based on the testing of the surgical specimen, mainly from luminal A-like to luminal B-like.

conclusionsThough the concordance rates for single markers were convincing, a significant proportion of the molecular subtypes differed between CNB and the surgical specimen. Re-testing of PR and Ki67 is mandatory to ensure optimal treatment decisions. Further research is necessary to define safe, efficient, and cost-effective predictive models in adjuvant breast cancer therapy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinomaErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansKi-67 AntigenMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBiomarkers, TumorERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesKi-67 AntigenReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneBiomarkersBreast cancerConcordance rateCore needle biopsyEstrogen receptorHer2neuimmuno-histochemistryKi-67Luminal A likeLuminal B likeMolecular subtypePredictive factorsProgesterone receptorsurgical specimenSurrogate marker

Identifiers

PMID33585986
OpenAlexW3131225939

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.