ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2025
HER2 testing results, practices, and preferences among pathologists and oncologists in the US community setting: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo quantify the proportion of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancers with low or ultralow levels of HER2 expression and identify facilitators and barriers to HER2 testing and reporting in US community settings.
methodsAnalysis of electronic medical record data from a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with HER2-negative breast cancer from 2018 to 2023 within the Guardian Research Network, classifying HER2 status by immunohistochemistry (IHC) score. Analysis of responses to surveys of community-based pathologists and oncologists, supplemented by qualitative analysis of one-to-one interview transcripts.
resultsThe retrospective study identified 13,824 patients diagnosed with HER2-negative breast cancer from seven healthcare organizations, with 13,100 patients included in the final cohort. Patients were classified as HER2 IHC 0 (32%), 1 + (35%), 2 + (18%), and 3 + (1%); 15% of patients did not have a documented IHC score. Surveys and interviews with 63 community-based pathologists and oncologists found that most pathologists (93%) reported discrete IHC scoring on pathology reports, but 16% had difficulty assigning scores between IHC 0 and IHC 1 + . Barriers included inadequate standards, increased interpretation time, and workflow disruptions. Digital pathology was used by 39% of pathologists, with improved accuracy, higher efficiency, and reduced subjectivity stated as advantages, and high costs and lack of practice standards as barriers to adoption.
conclusionWhile innovative testing tools were viewed favorably by pathologists and oncologists, cost and need for training were barriers to adoption. Improving documentation practices, standardizing protocols, and adopting tools such as digital pathology could enhance the accuracy and consistency of HER2 testing.
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.