Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38537665›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2024

Comparison of the Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy Between Immunohistochemistry HER2 (3+) and HER2 (2+)/ISH+ Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Dechuang Jiao, Guangyu Li, Hao Dai, Jia Wang, Jiao Zhang, Yangyang Hou, Xuhui Guo, Yajie Zhao, Xilong Gong, Zhenzhen Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dechuang JiaoDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Guangyu LiDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hao DaiDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Jia WangDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Jiao ZhangDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yangyang HouDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xuhui GuoDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yajie ZhaoDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xilong GongDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Zhenzhen LiuDepartment of Breast Disease, Henan Breast Cancer Centre, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University and Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-3878-1258
Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82372712Science and Technology Research Projects 232102311125Training Program for Young and Middle-aged Health and Technology Innovation Leaders YXKC2022005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) criteria, both immunohistochemical HER2 (3+) and HER2 (2+)/in situ hybridization (ISH) amplified [HER2 (2+)/ISH+] breast cancers (BCs) fall under the HER2-positive BC category. However, there is a lack of studies exploring the difference of neoadjuvant therapeutic response between patients with HER2 (3+) and HER2 (2+)/ISH+ early BC. We aimed to evaluate the neoadjuvant therapeutic response, long-term outcome, and intrinsic subtype heterogeneity between HER2 (3+) and HER2 (2+)/ISH+ BC.

methodsWe examined 2 distinct cohorts. Cohort 1 (C1) encompassed 2648 patients with HER2-positive early BC diagnoses, and they received neoadjuvant therapy (NT) and surgery between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2022, from the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Breast Cancer Data Base. Cohort 2 (C2) comprised 135 patients with early-stage HER2-positive BC who underwent NT and surgery at Henan Cancer Hospital from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022. These patients had available genomic and transcriptomic data at their disposal. C1 and C2 were further categorized into 2 patient cohorts as follows: (1) patients with IHC HER2 (3+) early BC [HER2 (3+) group], (2) patients with HER2 (2+)/ISH+ early BC [HER2 (2+)/ISH+ group]. Among those excluded from the analysis were patients < 18 years or >80 years of age. Clinicopathological parameters, long-term outcomes, and intrinsic subtypes were analyzed.

resultsIn the C1 population, 83.7% had HER2 (3+) BC, while 16.3% had HER2 (2+)/ISH+ BC. Patients with HER2 (3+) had a significantly higher pathological complete response (PCR) rate (38.9%) than patients with HER2 (2+)/ISH+ (18.1%; P < .001), but the disease-free survival (DFS) was comparable after a median follow-up of 29 months (P = .556). The addition of trastuzumab or trastuzumab plus pertuzumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) improved PCR rates and DFS in HER2 (3+) BC but not in HER2 (2+)/ISH+ BC. In the C2 population, 97.75% HER2 (3+) and 52.17% HER2 (2+)/ISH+ were HER2 enriched (HER2E) subtype (P < .001). HER2E showed increased PCR rates compared to non-HER2E (P = .004).

conclusionsCompared to HER2 (3+) BC, the limited effectiveness of neoadjuvant trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy for HER2 (2+)/ISH+ BC is due to subtype heterogeneity. Reassessment of targeted therapy efficacy in patients with HER2 (2+)/ISH+ BC is essential.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesNeoadjuvant TherapyAdultAgedFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinasesbreast cancerHER2immunohistochemistryneoadjuvant therapy

Identifiers

PMID38537665
PMCPMC11224972
OpenAlexW4394760699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.