Impact of the 2013 <scp>A</scp>merican <scp>S</scp>ociety of <scp>C</scp>linical <scp>O</scp>ncology/<scp>C</scp>ollege of <scp>A</scp>merican <scp>P</scp>athologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (<scp>HER</scp>2) testing of invasive breast carcinoma: a focus on tumours assessed as ‘equivocal’ for <scp>HER</scp>2 gene amplification by fluorescence <i>in‐situ</i> hybridization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The updated 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing guidelines include changes to HER2 in-situ hybridization (ISH) interpretation criteria. We conducted a retrospective review of a consecutive cohort of primary breast carcinomas to assess the impact of updated guidelines on HER2 classification and laboratory resource utilization, and to characterize the pathobiology of HER2 equivocal tumours. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 904 dual-probe HER2/chromosome enumeration probe (CEP17) FISH tests on invasive breast carcinomas were studied. Eighty-five (9.4%) cases had a classification change with the updated guidelines; 66 (7.3%) went from HER2-negative to -equivocal, 15 cases (1.7%) were reclassified as HER2-positive and four cases from HER2-equivocal to -negative. A subset of primary breast cancers, reported initially as HER2-negative but -equivocal by 2013 guidelines, was identified. Traditional pathological factors of this subset were compared to HER2-negative and -positive control cases. The three HER2 groups demonstrated statistically significant differences with respect to prognostic factors, including tumour size, grade and nodal involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The updated HER2 testing guidelines will result in the reclassification of approximately 9.4% of primary breast cancers with uncertainty regarding the clinical impact of this reclassification in the majority of cases. Resource utilization will increase as a result of the recommendation for retesting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".