Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35029776›Full record

ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2022

Updates on breast biomarkers.

Saleh Najjar, Kimberly H Allison

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Precision Medicine in Cytopathology.Surgical pathology clinics · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Saleh NajjarDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Kimberly H AllisonDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. allisonk@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1776-0503
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advancements in breast cancer treatment have ushered in a new era of precision medicine. Novel trials have led to the approval of a growing list of personalized therapies and corresponding biomarkers. These advancements have shifted the pathologist's practice into a leading role in the management breast cancer. Understanding the complex algorithms and diagnostic modalities used to assess predictive and prognostic biomarkers is central for quality oncology care. ER and HER2 subcategorize breast cancers into treatment groups under which different biomarkers and therapies are indicated, while they also serve as predictive biomarkers for specific targeted treatments. This review will cover the evolution and latest updates of the CAP/ASCO guidelines relevant to these two important biomarkers in breast cancer. Still evolving concepts such as HER2 heterogeneity, HER2 "low," and HER2-mutated cancers have the potential to continue to change HER2 testing in breast cancers. In addition to ER and HER2, biomarkers used in specific clinical scenarios will be covered. In early-stage ER-positive/HER2-negative disease, multi-gene expression panels (such as OncotypeDX) have emerged as the new standard biomarker when determining if chemotherapy should be added to endocrine therapy. In the more aggressive ER-negative/HER2-positive or triple negative early-stage breast cancers, response to neoadjuvant therapy has proved to be a useful biomarker to help determine if additional therapy should be added for patients with an incomplete response. Ki67 has also recently emerged as a marker that can be used to identify the highest risk ER-positive and HER2-negative cancers if considering adding a cell cycle inhibitor (abemaciclib) to endocrine therapy. Importantly, in the metastatic setting, numerous predictive biomarkers have emerged, including recommendations for germline BRCA mutation testing for all metastatic patients (to determine if PARP inhibitor therapy is an option) and other ER-/HER2-dependent biomarkers such as PD-L1 (for potential immunotherapy in triple negative patients) and PIK3CA mutation status (for potential PI3K inhibitor therapy in ER-positive metastatic patients). Other less common biomarkers of targeted therapy options (e.g., MSI/MMR, TMB, NTRK) as well as comprehensive genomic profiling to identify uncommon targets are also available in the metastatic setting to determine additional treatment options.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorBreastErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyPhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesPhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesBreast cancer; Predictive; Prognostic; Biomarker; HER2; ER; Gene expression panel

Identifiers

PMID35029776
OpenAlexW4206377651

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.