ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2021
HER2 testing in breast cancers: comparison of assays and interpretation using ASCO/CAP 2013 and 2018 guidelines.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translational and real-world evidence of trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 plus pertuzumab in neoadjuvant HER2-positive early breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Observational
- Reliability of core needle biopsy for HER2-low early-stage breast cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Article
- The unique monoclonal antibodies and immunochemical assay for comprehensive determination of the cell-bound and soluble HER2 in different biological samples.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation ofCancers · 2023Article
- Article
- Pathological Features and Molecular Phenotype of MMTV Like-Positive Feline Mammary Carcinomas.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeHER2 overexpression and gene amplification are routinely tested by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), respectively. In addition, HER2 mRNA expression is also tested by the Oncotype DX assay. Discordance between laboratories among the different assays remains a problem. To improve the routine HER2 reporting, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) updated their guidelines in 2018. Our study will compare concordance of HER2 status by IHC and FISH using ASCO/CAP 2013 and 2018 guidelines with Oncotype DX.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 657 estrogen receptor positive primary breast cancer cases with available Oncotype DX tests between 2011 and 2018. Medical records were reviewed for HER2 results by IHC, FISH, and Oncotype DX. The HER2 results by different assays and between 2013 and 2018 guidelines were compared.
resultsOf the 657 cases, 280 were tested by IHC, FISH, and Oncotype DX. HER2-equivocal cases by IHC 2013 guidelines were all negative (67/67, 100%) by FISH 2018 guidelines and by Oncotype DX. HER2-equivocal cases by FISH 2013 guidelines were all negative (16/16, 100%) by FISH 2018 guidelines, while 15/16 (93.8%) negative and 1/16 (6.2%) equivocal by Oncotype DX. The HER2-equivocal and HER2-negative groups were similar in age, gender, histology, grade, and Ki67 score.
conclusionsHER2 concordance was highest between Oncotype DX (99.6%) and FISH per 2018 guidelines. This suggests that the ASCO/CAP 2018 guidelines improved the accurate stratification of HER2-equivocal cases.
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.