Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS)

Open access
Thompson, Alastair M, Jordan, Lee B, Quinlan, Philip, Anderson, Elizabeth, Skene, Anthony, Dewar, John A, Purdie, Colin A, the Breast Recurrence in Tissues Study Group·2010·Breast Cancer Research

Abstract

Introduction: Immunohistochemistry of primary breast cancer is routinely used to guide changes in therapy at the time of relapse. Retrospective reviews suggest that the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) receptor may differ between the primary and loco-regional recurrence or distant metastases. The Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS) was a large, multicentre, prospective study to examine changes in ER, PR and HER2. Methods: Matched primary and recurrent breast cancer tissue samples were prospectively collected from 205 women attending 20 institutions. Central laboratory immunohistochemical analysis of core biopsies and tissue microarrays of ER and PR using the Allred and Quickscore methods and HER2 (confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for HER2 2+) were performed. Results: From 205 consenting women, 18 (8.8%) did not have recurrent disease on biopsy, 35 were ineligible, 13 had insufficient paired tissue and 2 were excluded for safety reasons. Paired samples from 137 women, mean age 62.6 years (range 27-87 years), 83/137 (60.6%) postmenopausal with a median 92.2 months (range 5-327 months) from primary to recurrence and 88 (64.2%) as locoregional recurrence were successfully analysed. A switch in receptor status, in either direction, by Allred score, was identified for ER in 14 patients (10.2%; P = 0.983 Wilcoxon sign rank test), PR in 34 (24.8%; P = 0.003 Wilcoxon sign rank test) and HER2 in 4 (2.9%; P = 0.074 Wilcoxon sign rank test). There was no difference between locoregional or distant recurrence in the proportion who switched. The switch in receptor status led to a change in the subsequent treatment plan for 24 patients (17.5%). Conclusions: This prospective study confirms retrospective evidence that the management of relapsed breast cancer should include confirmatory tissue sampling and identify switches of ER, PR or HER2 which change therapeutic management for one in six patients.

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 · 10.1186/bcr2771

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.

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

Cited by

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
Thompson, A. M., Jordan, L. B., Quinlan, P., Anderson, E., Skene, A., Dewar, J. A., Purdie, C. A., & the Breast Recurrence in Tissues Study Group
Venue
Breast Cancer Research
Published
2010-11-08
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
R92-R92
ISSN
  • 1465-5411 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-542X
OpenAlex
W2144396863
Cited by
253
References
0
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/bcr2771
The paper
Thompson, A. M., Jordan, L. B., Quinlan, P., Anderson, E., Skene, A., Dewar, J. A., Purdie, C. A., & the Breast Recurrence in Tissues Study Group. (2010). Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS). Breast Cancer Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2771

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.