ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2025
Report of a national external quality assessment program for HER2-low expression in breast cancer-options for increased accuracy with standardized methodology.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "HER2-Low" and the Challenge of Repurposing Legacy HER2 IHC Biomarker Assays.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Prevalence of HER2-ultralow breast cancer in South Korea: a multicenter study by reassessment of HER2-zero cases.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Correlation between HER2 gene copy number and immunohistochemistry categories in HER2-negative breast cancer: diagnostic utility for differentiating HER2-null, ultralow, and low tumors.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Redefining HER2 in Breast Cancer: From Conventional Positivity to Low and Ultralow in the New Era of Antibody-Drug Conjugates.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HER2-low breast cancer is an important new diagnostic tumor category with promising therapeutic options. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of HER2-low determination in a national prospective external quality assessment (EQA) and to identify pitfalls and options for improvement. Slides were distributed to 66 pathology institutions for diagnostic assessment according to pre-defined HER2-low categories. After local staining and evaluation, slides were collected for central re-evaluation for quality parameters. Endpoints included the percentage of correct HER2-assessments and subgroup analyses for selected technical parameters. Within this prospective proficiency test, a total of 659 individual HER2 evaluations were performed by 66 participating institutions with 86% correct results. Of the incorrect results, 82% (73 of 89) reported a HER2 category that was too high, and only 18% reported a category that was too low. A successful participation was achieved by 71% of 66 pathology institutions. In central re-evaluation, technical limitations were identified as the most important parameters for suboptimal results. In defined institutional subgroups with optimal technical parameters (antibodies, automation platforms and detection systems) a success rate of up to 86-91% was achieved. In this prospective EQA assessment, the concordance rate of pathology institutions is now much higher compared to previous retrospective studies. However, the quality assurance results are still lower compared to classical HER2 proficiency tests focusing on HER2 3 + tumors, and further optimization is necessary. The results will contribute to further improve the reliability of HER2 testing, which could also be applied to HER2-ultralow in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40762651What 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.