Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33803148›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Variability in Breast Cancer Biomarker Assessment and the Effect on Oncological Treatment Decisions: A Nationwide 5-Year Population-Based Study.

Balazs Acs, Irma Fredriksson, Caroline Rönnlund, Catharina Hagerling, Anna Ehinger, Anikó Kovács, Rasmus Røge, Jonas Bergh, Johan Hartman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

9 authors.

Balazs AcsDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0972-4633
Irma FredrikssonDepartment of Breast, Endocrine Tumors and Sarcoma, Karolinska University Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7811-9317
Caroline RönnlundDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.
Catharina HagerlingDivision of Clinical Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, 22185 Lund, Sweden.
Anna EhingerDivision of Clinical Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, 22185 Lund, Sweden.
Anikó KovácsDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Rasmus RøgeDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6452-1599
Jonas BerghDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.
Johan HartmanDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Stockholm County Council NASwedish Breast Cancer Association NASwedish Cancer fund NAthe Stockholm Cancer Society NAthe Swedish Research Council NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compared estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth-factor receptor 2 (HER2), Ki67, and grade scores among the pathology departments in Sweden. We investigated how ER and HER2 positivity rates affect the distribution of endocrine and HER2-targeted treatments among oncology departments. All breast cancer patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2018 in Sweden were identified in the National Quality Register for Breast Cancer. Cases with data on ER, PR, HER2, Ki67, grade, and treatment were selected (43,261 cases from 29 departments following the guidelines for biomarker testing). The ER positivity rates ranged from 84.2% to 97.6% with 6/29 labs out of the overall confidence intervals (CIs), while PR rates varied between 64.8% and 86.6% with 7/29 labs out of the CIs. HER2 positivity rates ranged from 9.4% to 16.3%, with 3/29 labs out of the overall CIs. Median Ki67 varied between 15% and 30%, where 19/29 labs showed significant intra-laboratory variability. The proportion of grade-II cases varied between 42.9% and 57.1%, and 13/29 labs were outside of the CI. Adjusting for patient characteristics, the proportion of endocrine and anti-HER2 treatments followed the rate of ER and HER2 positivity, illustrating the clinical effect of inter- and intra-laboratory variability. There was limited variability among departments in ER, PR, and HER2 testing. However, even a few outlier pathology labs affected endocrine and HER2-targeted treatment rates in a clinically relevant proportion, suggesting the need for improvement. High variability was found in grading and Ki67 assessment, illustrating the need for the adoption of new technologies in practice.

Indexed as

biomarkerbreast cancerendocrine treatmentHER2-targeted treatmentpositivity ratevariability

Identifiers

PMID33803148
PMCPMC7963154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.