Comparison of HER2 Dual-Color and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; ERBB2 gene) is of prognostic and predictive significance in breast carcinoma. Both fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and dual-color in situ hybridization (DISH) methods are available. DISH and FISH are highly concordant in validation studies, but differences may be more prevalent in the equivocal range. Our goal was to compare FISH and DISH on a cohort enriched for equivocal cases, with respect to HER2 determination. METHODS: The cohort was enriched for equivocal (2+) cases. DISH and FISH were evaluated using standard protocols and the results compared with respect to HER2 status, HER2 copy number, and HER2/chromosome 17 (Chr17) ratio. RESULTS: In total, 109 cases were identified. The agreement rate of DISH with FISH was 74%. The mean ± SD HER2/Chr17 ratio by DISH was 1.63 ± 0.08 vs 1.59 ± 0.26 by FISH (P = .45). The mean ± SD HER2 copy number by DISH was 4.56 ± 0.45 vs 4.75 ± 1.08 by FISH (P = .004). Individual signals were more easily resolved using FISH in cases with higher copy numbers. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort enriched for equivocal cases, the numerical values of HER2 copy number were significantly lower using DISH, resulting in discordances. Although DISH is a valid method, variations with FISH may be expected in high-equivocal cases and in quality assurance activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".