ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
Multi-site validation of an AI-based biomarker test for determining ER, PR, and HER2 status from H&E-stained breast cancer slides.
Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2026. 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The assessment of estrogen/progesterone receptors (ER/PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is essential for managing breast cancer (BC) patients, as these biomarkers guide targeted therapies. Traditional methods such as immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Materials and methods: PPB was validated on a large, diverse cohort of 3138 unique BC samples from five sites across the UK and United States. The validation included both biopsy and resection specimens, digitally scanned using multiple imaging platforms. Standard performance characteristics were assessed by comparison with IHC and ISH reference assays. Results: PPB consistently demonstrated high performance across multiple cohorts, confirming its effectiveness for establishing the status of ER/PR and assessing HER2 negativity for BC patients. HER2 achieved an average sensitivity of 90.6% (±0.6) and a concordance of 93.7% (±7.8%) when determining the negative status. For ER, we measured an overall sensitivity and specificity of 98.2% (±0.3%) and 62.0% (±7.3%), averaged over all sites, respectively. For PR the averaged sensitivity and specificity across all sites were 97.9% (±1.0%) and 45.7% (±1.6%), respectively. Conclusions: Integrating PPB into routine clinical workflows could enable rapid and accurate assessment of BC biomarkers, improving access to targeted therapies and enhancing clinical decision making.
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.