ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2022
Comparing the 2017 ASCO/CAP guideline for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma surgical specimen to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline for breast cancer in assessing the HER2 status in primary mucinous ovarian carcinoma.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The successful experiences of HER2 inhibitors in patients with HER2 ( +) breast cancer (BC) and advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) have encouraged us to continuously explore the HER2 status and its potential as a therapeutic target in primary mucinous ovarian carcinoma (mOC). Using 49 primary mOC samples, we compared the assay characteristics of HER2 status between both 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) for GEA and 2018 ASCO/CAP for BC guideline recommendations. We demonstrated moderate to strong agreement between their HER2 IHC results (Weighted Kappa = 0.78) and perfect agreement between their HER2 FISH results (Kappa = 1.00). The overall concordance of non-equivocal HER2 IHC and HER2 FISH results was 97.56% (kappa = 0.93) by 2017 ASCO/CAP for GEA criteria and 100% (kappa = 1.00) by 2018 ASCO/CAP for BC criteria. The number (n = 8; 16.32%) of HER2 IHC equivocal (score + 2) by 2017 ASCO/CAP for GEA criteria was twofold higher than that (n = 4; 8.16%) by 2018 ASCO/CAP for BC criteria. Additionally, we identified one false-positive (FP) case (n = 1; 2.04%) that was HER2 IHC positive (score + 3), but HER2 FISH non-amplified result by the 2017 ASCO/CAP for GEA criteria. In conclusion, owing to the absence of FP/ FN and fewer equivocal cases of HER2 IHC, we recommend that the 2018 ASCO/CAP for BC are more appropriate than 2017 ASCO/CAP for GEA criteria in appraising the HER2 status in mOC and justifying the inclusion of eligible subjects for basket clinical trials of the newly developmental anti-HER2 treatments.
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.