The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Updated UK Recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer
Open accessAbstract
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression is present in approximately 15% of early invasive breast cancers, and is an important predictive and prognostic marker. The substantial benefits achieved with anti-HER2 targeted therapies in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer have emphasised the need for accurate assessment of HER2 status. Current data indicate that HER2 test accuracy improved following previous publication of guidelines and the implementation of an external quality assessment scheme with a decline in false-positive and false-negative rates. This paper provides an update of the guidelines for HER2 testing in the UK. The aim is to further improve the analytical validity and clinical utility of HER2 testing by providing guidelines of test performance parameters, and recommendations on the postanalytical interpretation of test results. HER2 status should be determined in all newly diagnosed and recurrent breast cancers. Testing involves immunohistochemistry with >10% complete strong membrane staining defining a positive status.In situ hybridisation, either fluorescent or bright field chromogenic, is used either upfront or in immunohistochemistry borderline cases to detect the presence of HER 2 gene amplification. Situations where repeat HER2 testing is advised are outlined and the impact of genetic heterogeneity is discussed. Strict quality control and external quality assurance of validated assays are essential. Testing laboratories should perform ongoing competency assessment and proficiency tests and ensure the reliability and accuracy of the assay. Pathologists, oncologists and surgeons involved in test interpretation and clinical use should adhere to published guidelines and maintain accurate performance and consistent interpretation of test results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Trastuzumab after Adjuvant Chemotherapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer
Piccart-Gebhart, M. J., Procter, M., Leyland-Jones, B., Goldhirsch, A., Untch, M., Smith, I., Gianni, L., Baselga, J., Bell, R., Jackisch, C., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052306 · Cited by 5,084
Cited by
The future of precision medicine: potential impacts for health technology assessment
Love-Koh, J., Peel, A., Rejon-Parrilla, J. C., Ennis, K., Lovett, R., Manca, A., Chalkidou, A., Wood, H., & Taylor, M. (2018) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0686-6 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Rakha, E. A., Pinder, S. E., Bartlett, J. M. S., Ibrahim, M., Starczynski, J., Carder, P. J., Provenzano, E., Hanby, A., Hales, S., Lee, A. H. S., & Ellis, I. O.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Pathology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-12-08
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 93-99
- ISSN
- 0021-9746 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-4146
- OpenAlex
- W2163167967
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Updated UK Recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202571
- The paper
- Rakha, E. A., Pinder, S. E., Bartlett, J. M. S., Ibrahim, M., Starczynski, J., Carder, P. J., Provenzano, E., Hanby, A., Hales, S., Lee, A. H. S., & Ellis, I. O. (2015). Updated UK Recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202571
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.