Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39393036›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2024

Fully Automated Artificial Intelligence Solution for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Immunohistochemistry Scoring in Breast Cancer: A Multireader Study.

Savitri Krishnamurthy, Stuart J Schnitt, Anne Vincent-Salomon, Rita Canas-Marques, Eugenia Colon, Kanchan Kantekure, Marina Maklakovski, Wilfrid Finck, Jeanne Thomassin, Yuval Globerson and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Regulatory science for AI-basedJournal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Transformer-BasedDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

16 authors.

Savitri KrishnamurthyDepartment of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-9030-4136
Stuart J SchnittDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Anne Vincent-SalomonDepartment of Pathology, Institut Curie, PSL University, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5754-5771
Rita Canas-MarquesDepartment of Pathology, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Eugenia ColonDepartment of Pathology, Unilabs, St Görans Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kanchan KantekureBeth Israel Deaconess, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Marina MaklakovskiDepartment of Pathology, Assuta Ashdod Medical Center, Ashdod, Israel.
Wilfrid FinckMediPath, Frejus, France.
Jeanne ThomassinMediPath, Frejus, France.
Yuval GlobersonIbex Medical Analytics, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Lilach BienIbex Medical Analytics, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Giuseppe MallelIbex Medical Analytics, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-8673-7526
Maya GrinwaldIbex Medical Analytics, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Chaim LinhartIbex Medical Analytics, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Judith SandbankIbex Medical Analytics, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Manuela VecslerIbex Medical Analytics, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-7951-4885

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe proven efficacy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) antibody-drug conjugate therapy for treating HER2-low breast cancers necessitates more accurate and reproducible HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring. We aimed to validate performance and utility of a fully automated artificial intelligence (AI) solution for interpreting HER2 IHC in breast carcinoma. MATERIALS AND

methodsA two-arm multireader study of 120 HER2 IHC whole-slide images from four sites assessed HER2 scoring by four surgical pathologists without and with the aid of an AI HER2 solution. Both arms were compared with high-confidence ground truth (GT) established by agreement of at least four of five breast pathology subspecialists according to ASCO/College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2018/2023 guidelines.

resultsThe mean interobserver agreement among GT pathologists across all HER2 scores was 72.4% (N = 120). The AI solution demonstrated high accuracy for HER2 scoring, with 92.1% agreement on slides with high confidence GT (n = 92). The use of the AI tool led to improved performance by readers, interobserver agreement increased from 75.0% for digital manual read to 83.7% for AI-assisted review, and scoring accuracy improved from 85.3% to 88.0%. For the distinction of HER2 0 from 1+ cases (n = 58), pathologists supported by AI showed significantly higher interobserver agreement (69.8% without AI

conclusionThis study demonstrated utility of a fully automated AI solution to aid in scoring HER2 IHC accurately according to ASCO/CAP 2018/2023 guidelines. Pathologists supported by AI showed improvements in HER2 IHC scoring consistency and accuracy, especially for distinguishing HER2 0 from 1+ cases. This AI solution could be used by pathologists as a decision support tool for enhancing reproducibility and consistency of HER2 scoring and particularly for identifying HER2-low breast cancers.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesImmunohistochemistryFemaleHumansObserver VariationERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

Identifiers

PMID39393036
PMCPMC11485213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.