ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2022
Digital validation of breast biomarkers (ER, PR, AR, and HER2) in cytology specimens using three different scanners.
Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2022. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Novel IHC Assay for PD-L1 Detection in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Digital Validation in Breast Cancer Needle Biopsies: Comparison of Histological Grade and Biomarker Expression Assessment Using Conventional Light Microscopy, Whole Slide Imaging, and Digital Image Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Integrating and validating automated digital imaging analysis of estrogen receptor immunohistochemistry in a fully digital workflow for clinical use.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Progression in digital pathology has yielded new opportunities for a remote work environment. We evaluated the utility of digital review of breast cancer immunohistochemical prognostic markers (IHC) using whole slide images (WSI) from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) cytology cell block specimens (CB) using three different scanners.CB from 20 patients with breast cancer diagnosis and available IHC were included. Glass slides including 20 Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), 20 Estrogen Receptor (ER), 20 Progesterone Receptor (PR), 16 Androgen Receptor (AR), and 20 Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) were scanned on 3 different scanners. Four breast pathologists reviewed the WSI and recorded their semi-quantitative scoring for each marker. Kappa concordance was defined as complete agreement between glass/digital pairs. Discordances between microscopic and digital reads were classified as a major when a clinically relevant change was seen. Minor discordances were defined as differences in scoring percentages/staining pattern that would not have resulted in a clinical implication. Scanner precision was tabulated according to the success rate of each scan on all three scanners.In total, we had 228 paired glass/digital IHC reads on all 3 scanners. There was strong concordance kappa ≥0.85 for all pathologists when comparing paired microscopic/digital reads. Strong concordance (kappa ≥0.86) was also seen when comparing reads between scanners.Twenty-three percent of the WSI required rescanning due to barcode detection failures, 14% due to tissue detection failures, and 2% due to focus issues. Scanner 1 had the best average precision of 92%. HER2 IHC had the lowest intra-scanner precision (64%) among all stains.This study is the first to address the utility of WSI in breast cancer IHC in CB and to validate its reporting using 3 different scanners. Digital images are reliable for breast IHC assessment in CB and offer similar reproducibility to microscope reads.
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.