ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2025
Inter-rater agreement of HER2-low scores between expert breast pathologists and the Visiopharm digital image analysis application (HER2 APP, CE2797).
Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Scoring in Breast Cancer: Diagnostic Agreement and Understanding Discordance.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Hormone Receptor Status Determination from H&E-Stained Biopsy Images Using Pixel-Level Classifiers.Cancers · 2026Article
- DAXX and ATRX Expression in Canine Prostate and Bladder Cancer Identified by Immunohistochemistry-A Digital Quantitative Pilot Study.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inter-observer concordance data for the HER2 category as assessed by a group of 16 specialist breast pathologists on 50 diagnostic core biopsies was compared with that produced by digital image analysis (DIA) using the HER2 APP, CE2797 (VP APP; Visiopharm, Hoersholm, Denmark). Comparing pathologists' consensus scores and DIA scores, 36 cases (73.5%) agreed. Fleiss' kappa statistic was 0.433 (indicative of moderate agreement). Cohen's weighted kappa was used to compare the scores of individual raters to consensus scores; for all 50 cases the kappa scores had a range between 0.412 and 0.854; the VP APP was ranked 12th of 17 raters (kappa score 0.638 indicating substantial agreement). Results for HER2-low cases (N = 44) showed a kappa score range of 0.295 to 0.823; the VP APP ranked 12th of 17 (score 0.535 indicating moderate agreement). For high agreement cases the kappa score range was 0.664 to 1.000 for all HER2 scores (N = 24) and the VP APP scored 0.916 (indicating almost perfect agreement). For the HER2-low scores (N = 20), the kappa score range was 0.506-1.000 and the VP APP scored 0.860 (almost perfect agreement). DIA of the proportions of tumour cells showing expression within each of the HER2 categories demonstrated that the majority of cases showing a low level of agreement between pathologists showed heterogeneity and/or a level of expression close to a cut-point for decision making. This study demonstrates that the VP APP produces results that are extremely well-aligned to those of expert pathologists in cases with good overall agreement, and in difficult cases its reproducibility will outperform that of the visual scorer. The results also suggest that use of the VP APP has the potential to reduce the proportion of cases referred for gene amplification testing by reducing the number of cases incorrectly classified as HER2 2+.
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.