ArticleJournal of Cancer2022
Liquid Biopsy and Tissue Biopsy Comparison with Digital PCR and IHC/FISH for HER2 Amplification Detection in Breast Cancer Patients.
Article in Journal of Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05942066 (Feasibility Study Aiming at Pre-Analytical Standardization of Whole Blood Processing for Liquid Biopsy Applications), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
Feasibility Study Aiming at Pre-Analytical Standardization of Whole Blood Processing for Liquid Biopsy Applications
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Concordance between Liquid and Tissue Biopsy for Actionable Mutations: Insights from the ROME Trial.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Trial
- Machine Learning in Biomarker-Driven Precision Oncology: Automated Immunohistochemistry Scoring and Emerging Directions in Genitourinary Cancers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsy in breast cancer: current biomarker platforms and clinical applications.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026Review
- Antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy: current landscape, challenges, and future directions.Molecular cancer · 2025Review
- Unraveling the Potential of ctDNA in Precision Medicine for Breast Cancer.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
- Trastuzumab deruxtecan: expanding the role of HER2-targeted therapy in solid tumors.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Liquid biopsy in gynecological cancers: a translational framework from molecular insights to precision oncology and clinical practice.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025Review
- Aggregation-Induced Emission Luminogen: Role in Biopsy for Precision Medicine.Chemical reviews · 2024Review
- The Clinical Utility of Droplet Digital PCR for Profiling Circulating Tumor DNA in Breast Cancer Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
- Review
- Is There an Ace Up One's Sleeve in the Preanalytical Phase of the Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis?BioFactors (Oxford, England)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two hundred twenty-four breast cancer patients with paired tissue and plasma samples were enrolled from 3 clinical centers to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of a digital PCR HER2 amplification assay. All patients were histologically confirmed diagnosis of locally advanced and recurrent or metastatic breast cancer with stage III/IV and had tissue HER2 status determinations using IHC/FISH. For the whole 224 advanced breast cancer patients, the sensitivity between dPCR in plasma and IHC/FISH in tissue samples is 43.75% (42/96), the specificity is 84.38% (108/128) and the overall concordance is 66.96% (150/224). Interestingly, when we looked at stage III, stage IV and recurrent or metastatic breast cancer separately, compared with IHC/FISH in tissue samples, the sensitivity of dPCR in plasma increases from 37.93% (11/29) for stage III to 41.67% (15/36) for stage IV cancer. Recurrent breast cancer patient had an increased sensitivity of 51.61% (16/31). This is consistent with our expectation sensitivity would increase concordantly as tumor burden goes up. On the other hand, specificity decreased from 92.68% (38/41) for stage III to 86.44% (51/59) for stage IV cancer. Recurrent breast cancer patient had a specificity of only 67.86% (19/28). This is, in part, due to inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity. Many patients determined to be negative for HER2 amplification in tissue biopsy could have HER2 positive tumors at other sites, which was detected by the liquid biopsy. This study suggested the necessity of liquid biopsy for HER2 amplification detection and demonstrated digital PCR can be used as a companion diagnostic tool to determine HER2 amplification status. It also suggested that a liquid biopsy should follow a negative result from tissue biopsy to avoid false negative results especially for late-stage breast cancer patients and ones who experienced relapse or became resistant to current therapy. Future studies should focus on therapeutic effects on patients determined to be HER2 positive through liquid biopsy and collecting additional tissue biopsies to identify HER2 positive tumor when the original tissue biopsy and liquid biopsy don't agree.
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.