Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

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 access
Rakha, Emad A, Pinder, Sarah E, Bartlett, John M S, Ibrahim, Merdol, Starczynski, Jane, Carder, Pauline J, Provenzano, Elena, Hanby, Andrew, Hales, Sally, Lee, Andrew H S, Ellis, Ian O·2015·Journal of Clinical Pathology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202571

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 255

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.