Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 670

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Methods for Tissue-Based Detection of the HER-2/neu Alteration in Human Breast Cancer: A Direct Comparison of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization and Immunohistochemistry

Pauletti, Giovanni, Dandekar, Suganda, Rong, HongMei, Ramos, Lilllian, Peng, HongJun, Seshadri, Ram, Slamon, Dennis J.·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) in detecting the HER-2/neu alteration in human breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Unselected stage I, II, and III breast cancer patients (N = 900) were tested for HER-2/neu gene amplification by FISH in paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed archival material. Of these samples, 856 were tested for HER-2/neu overexpression by non–antigen-retrieval IHC with the polyclonal antibody R60, the sensitivity and specificity of which was preliminarily compared with the United States Food and Drug Administration–approved HercepTest (Dako Corp, Carpinteria, CA). Patient survival was analyzed in relation to the presence of the HER-2/neu alteration as determined by these two methodologies. RESULTS: A total of 189 (21%) of 900 patients were positive by FISH and 147 (17.2%) of 856 were positive by IHC. This discrepancy is consistent with expected loss of IHC sensitivity associated with tissue fixation/embedding. The HercepTest did not improve sensitivity and introduced false positives. Comparison of R60-based IHC with FISH demonstrates that patient survival is associated progressively to gene amplification level as determined by FISH, whereas for IHC an association is found only in the highest (3+) immunostaining group. Among FISH-negative tumors, 45 (6.6%) of 678 were IHC-positive, with a survival probability similar to that of FISH-negative/IHC-negative cases; FISH-positive/IHC-negative patients have a survival probability similar to that of FISH-positive/IHC-positive cases. CONCLUSION: IHC does not consistently discriminate patients likely to have a poor prognosis, whereas FISH provides superior prognostic information in segregating high-risk from lower-risk beast cancers. HER-2/neu protein overexpression in the absence of gene amplification occurs infrequently in breast cancer, in which case, patient outcome is similar to that of patients without the alteration.

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.2000.18.21.3651

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 670

Metadata

Authors
Pauletti, G., Dandekar, S., Rong, H., Ramos, L., Peng, H., Seshadri, R., & Slamon, D. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2000-11-01
Volume
18
Issue
21
Pages
3651-3664
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2125730396
Cited by
670
References
2
FWCI
17.96
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: Assessment of Methods for Tissue-Based Detection of the HER-2/neu Alteration in Human Breast Cancer: A Direct Comparison of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization and Immunohistochemistry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.21.3651
The paper
Pauletti, G., Dandekar, S., Rong, H., Ramos, L., Peng, H., Seshadri, R., & Slamon, D. J. (2000). Assessment of Methods for Tissue-Based Detection of the HER-2/neu Alteration in Human Breast Cancer: A Direct Comparison of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization and Immunohistochemistry. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.21.3651

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.