ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2022
Comparison of immunohistochemistry and RT-qPCR for assessing ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 and evaluating subtypes in patients with breast cancer.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Promising reference genes for RT-qPCR normalization in breast tumors and normal adjacent tissues.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Article
- ESR1 Expression Negatively Correlates with Immune Cell Infiltration and Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Estrogen Receptor-Positive/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Genetic Signature of Breast Cancer Defines Therapeutic Interventions and Indicates Early Drug Resistance.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial intelligence in classifying HER2 status in breast cancer immunohistochemistry.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Anti-Obesity Effects ofFood science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Concordance of HER2 status between primary tumor and circulating tumor cells in breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Metabolomics-Based Machine Learning Models Accurately Predict Breast Cancer Estrogen Receptor Status.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Prognostic value of PLEKHA4 and its correlation with tumor-infiltrating immune cells in breast cancer: a comprehensive study based on bioinformatics and clinical analysis validation.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Impact of the OncotypeDX score and HER2 RNA PCR levels on HER2-low IHC levels in primary and metastasized tumors.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- A new prognostic model including immune biomarkers, genomic proliferation tumor markers (Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Advancing breast cancer subtyping: optimizing immunohistochemical staining classification with insights from real-world Taiwanese data.American journal of cancer research · 2023Article
- FMRP expression in primary breast tumor cells correlates with recurrence and specific site of metastasis.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCurrently, the most commonly applied method for the determination of breast cancer subtypes is to test estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki67 by immunohistochemistry (IHC). However, the IHC method has substantial intraobserver and interobserver variability. ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67 mRNA tests by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay may improve the diagnostic objectivity and efficiency. Here, we compared the concordance between RT-qPCR and IHC for assessment of the same biomarkers and evaluated the subtypes.
methodsA total of 265 eligible cases were divided into a training cohort and a validation cohort, and the expressions of ER/ESR1, PR/PGR, HER2/ERBB2, and Ki67/MKI67 were tested by IHC and RT-qPCR. Then, the appropriate cutoff of RT-qPCR was calculated in the training cohort. The concordance between RT-qPCR and IHC was calculated for individual marker. In addition, we investigated the subtypes based on the RT-qPCR results.
resultsThe Spearman correlation coefficients between ER/ESR1, PR/PGR, HER2/ERBB2, and Ki67/MKI67 by IHC and RT-qPCR were 0.768, 0.699, 0.762, and 0.387, respectively. The cutoff values for the RT-qPCR assay of ESR1 (1%), PGR (1%), ERBB2, and MKi67 (14%) were 35.539, 32.139, 36.398, and 29.176, respectively. The overall percent agreement (OPA) between ER/ESR1, PR/PGR, HER2/ERBB2, and Ki67/MKI67 by IHC and RT-qPCR was 92.48%, 73.68%, 92.80%, and 74.44%, respectively. A total of 224 (84.53%) specimens were concordant for the breast cancer subtypes (IHC-based type) by RT-qPCR.
conclusionEvaluation of breast cancer biomarker status by RT-qPCR was highly concordant with IHC. RT-qPCR can be used as a supplementary method to detect molecular markers of breast cancer.
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.