↓ Skip to main content

ASCO

HER2 Gene Amplification Testing by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH): Comparison of the ASCO-College of American Pathologists Guidelines With FISH Scores Used for Enrollment in Breast Cancer…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
HER2 Gene Amplification Testing by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH): Comparison of the ASCO-College of American Pathologists Guidelines With FISH Scores Used for Enrollment in Breast Cancer International Research Group Clinical Trials
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 2016
DOI 10.1200/jco.2016.66.6693
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael F. Press, Guido Sauter, Marc Buyse, Hélène Fourmanoir, Emmanuel Quinaux, Denice D. Tsao-Wei, Wolfgang Eiermann, Nicholas Robert, Tadeusz Pienkowski, John Crown, Miguel Martin, Vicente Valero, John R. Mackey, Valerie Bee, Yanling Ma, Ivonne Villalobos, Anaamika Campeau, Martina Mirlacher, Mary-Ann Lindsay, Dennis J. Slamon

Abstract

ASCO and the College of American Pathologists (ASCO-CAP) recently recommended further changes to the evaluation of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene (HER2) amplification by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). We retrospectively assessed the impact of these new guidelines by using annotated Breast Cancer International Research Group (BCIRG) -005, BCIRG-006, and BCIRG-007 clinical trials data for which we have detailed outcomes. The HER2 FISH status of BCIRG-005/006/007 patients with breast cancers was re-evaluated according to current ASCO-CAP guidelines, which designates five different groups according to HER2 FISH ratio and average HER2 gene copy number per tumor cell: group 1 (in situ hybridization [ISH]-positive): HER2-to-chromosome 17 centromere ratio ≥ 2.0, average HER2 copies ≥ 4.0; group 2 (ISH-positive): ratio ≥ 2.0, copies < 4.0; group 3 (ISH-positive): ratio < 2.0, copies ≥ 6.0; group 4 (ISH-equivocal): ratio < 2.0, copies ≥ 4.0 and < 6.0; and group 5 (ISH-negative): ratio < 2.0, copies < 4.0. We assessed correlations with HER2 protein, clinical outcomes by disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) and benefit from trastuzumab therapy (hazard ratio [HR]). Among 10,468 patients with breast cancers who were successfully screened for trial entry, 40.8% were in ASCO-CAP ISH group 1, 0.7% in group 2; 0.5% in group 3, 4.1% in group 4, and 53.9% in group 5. Distributions were similar in screened compared with accrued subpopulations. Among accrued patients, FISH group 1 breast cancers were strongly correlated with immunohistochemistry 3+ status (P < .0001), whereas groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were not; however, groups 2, 4 and, 5 were strongly correlated with immunohistochemistry 0/1+ status (all P < .0001), whereas group 3 was not. Among patients accrued to BCIRG-005, group 4 was not associated with significantly worse DFS or OS compared with group 5. Among patients accrued to BCIRG-006, only group 1 showed a significant benefit from trastuzumab therapy (DFS HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83; P < .0001; OS HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.85; P = .0006), whereas group 2 did not. Our findings support the original categorizations of HER2 by FISH status in BCIRG/Translational Research in Oncology trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 123 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Other 15 12%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 32 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,208,042
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#2,960
of 22,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,053
of 349,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#40
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.