Determining True <i>HER2</i> Gene Status in Breast Cancers With Polysomy by Using Alternative Chromosome 17 Reference Genes: Implications for Anti-<i>HER2</i> Targeted Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The ratio of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) to CEP17 by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) with the centromeric probe CEP17 is used to determine HER2 gene status in breast cancer. Increases in CEP17 copy number have been interpreted as representing polysomy 17. However, pangenomic studies have demonstrated that polysomy 17 is rare. This study tests the hypothesis that the use of alternative chromosome 17 reference genes might more accurately assess true HER2 gene status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 171 patients with breast cancer who had HER2 FISH that had increased mean CEP17 copy numbers (> 2.6) were selected for additional chromosome 17 studies that used probes for Smith-Magenis syndrome (SMS), retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARA), and tumor protein p53 (TP53) genes. A eusomic copy number exhibited in one or more of these loci was used to calculate a revised HER2-to-chromosome-17 ratio by using the eusomic gene locus as the reference. RESULTS: Of 132 cases classified as nonamplified on the basis of their HER2:CEP17 ratios, 58 (43.9%) were scored as amplified by using alternative chromosome 17 reference gene probes, and 13 (92.9%) of 14 cases scored as equivocal were reclassified as amplified. Among the cases with mean HER2 copy number of 4 to 6, 41 (47.7%) of 86 had their HER2 gene status upgraded from nonamplified to amplified, and four (4.7%) of 86 were upgraded from equivocal to amplified. CONCLUSION: Our results support the findings of recent pangenomic studies that true polysomy 17 is uncommon. Additional FISH studies that use probes to the SMS, RARA, and TP53 genes are an effective way to determine the true HER2 amplification status in patients with polysomy 17 and they have important potential implications for guiding HER2-targeted therapy in breast cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".