ArticleBMC cancer2026
Discordance between IHC/FISH and RNA expression-based assessment of ER/HER2 status, and its prognostic impact assessed by propensity score matching.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used to determine estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, which are crucial for predicting breast cancer recurrence and guiding adjuvant therapy decisions. While RNA expression levels, assessed by microarray, can also determine ER and HER2 status, they do not match IHC assessment results perfectly. This study investigated the discordance rates between IHC and RNA expression-based assessment of ER and HER2 status and evaluated the prognostic impact of such discrepancies.
methodsIHC/FISH results for determining ER/HER2 status were compared with RNA expression-based assessment. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) analysis was performed to evaluate the association between discordant results and clinical outcomes. Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) was applied to adjust for potential confounding by differences in patient characteristics. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors most strongly associated with ER/HER2 discordance.
resultsThe discordance rate was 11.8% for ER and 19.4% for HER2 when comparing IHC/FISH with RNA expression-based assessment. Analysis of RFS suggested a possible association between discordant ER results and shorter RFS, although this did not reach statistical significance in unadjusted analysis. Using IPTW, discordance in both ER and HER2 status was found to be significantly related to worse RFS (p = 0.001 and p = 0.04, respectively). In multivariate analysis, PR-negative/HER2-positive cases were most strongly associated with ER/HER2 discordance.
conclusionsER and HER2 RNA expression levels should be considered for confirmation in patients with PR-negative/HER2-positive status, as discordance between IHC and RNA-based assessment is significantly associated with worse recurrence-free survival outcomes.
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.