Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 802

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

HER-2/neu gene amplification characterized by fluorescence in situ hybridization: poor prognosis in node-negative breast carcinomas.

Press, M F, Bernstein, L, Thomas, P A, Meisner, L F, Zhou, J Y, Ma, Y, Hung, G, Robinson, R A, Harris, C, El-Naggar, A, Slamon, D J, Phillips, R N, Ross, J S, Wolman, S R, Flom, K J·1997·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The HER-2/neu gene codes for a membrane receptor protein that is homologous, but distinct from the epidermal growth factor receptor. This investigation was performed to validate fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) as a sensitive and specific method for assessing HER-2/neu gene amplification in archival tissue and to test whether this alteration is associated with poor prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HER-2/neu gene amplification was determined by FISH in 140 archival breast cancers, previously characterized for gene amplification by Southern hybridization or dot-blot hybridization, and for gene expression by Northern hybridization, Western immunoblot, or immunohistochemistry. A separate cohort of 324 node-negative breast cancers was assessed for amplification by FISH to determine the utility of HER-2/neu gene amplification. RESULTS: Relative to solid-matrix blotting procedures, FISH analysis of HER-2/neu gene amplification showed a sensitivity of 98% and a specificity of 100% in 140 breast cancers. Among patients treated by surgery only, the relative risks (relative hazard) of early recurrence (recurrent disease within 24 months of diagnosis), recurrent disease (at any time), and disease-related death were statistically significantly associated with amplification. The prognostic information contributed by HER-2/neu amplification was independent of the other markers studied. CONCLUSION: FISH was an alternative technique for determining gene amplification and had some distinct advantages over Southern hybridization. Our results demonstrate that HER-2/neu gene amplification in the absence of adjuvant therapy is an independent predictor of poor clinical outcome and is a stronger discriminant than tumor size. Women with small tumors that had gene amplification were at increased risk of recurrence and disease-related death.

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 · 10.1200/jco.1997.15.8.2894

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 802

Metadata

Authors
Press, M. F., Bernstein, L., Thomas, P. A., Meisner, L. F., Zhou, J. Y., Ma, Y., Hung, G., Robinson, R. A., Harris, C., El-Naggar, A., Slamon, D. J., Phillips, R. N., Ross, J. S., Wolman, S. R., & Flom, K. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1997-08
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
2894-2904
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1867197625
Cited by
802
References
1
FWCI
13.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: HER-2/neu gene amplification characterized by fluorescence in situ hybridization: poor prognosis in node-negative breast carcinomas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1997.15.8.2894
The paper
Press, M. F., Bernstein, L., Thomas, P. A., Meisner, L. F., Zhou, J. Y., Ma, Y., Hung, G., Robinson, R. A., Harris, C., El-Naggar, A., Slamon, D. J., Phillips, R. N., Ross, J. S., Wolman, S. R., & Flom, K. J. (1997). HER-2/neu gene amplification characterized by fluorescence in situ hybridization: poor prognosis in node-negative breast carcinomas. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1997.15.8.2894

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.