Institution
St. Jude Medical Center
Healthcare•Fullerton, California, United States•
About: St. Jude Medical Center is a healthcare organization based out in Fullerton, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Breast cancer & Guideline. The organization has 93 authors who have published 150 publications receiving 13717 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Utah1, University of Michigan2, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust3, Ohio State University4, Indiana University5, St. Jude Medical Center6, University of Queensland7, Beaumont Hospital8, BC Cancer Agency9, University of Rochester10, Harvard University11, American Society of Clinical Oncology12, National Institutes of Health13, Baylor College of Medicine14, Sungkyunkwan University15, University of the West of England16, Tohoku University17, Radboud University Nijmegen18, University of Toronto19, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System20, Mayo Clinic21, University of Washington22, Memorial Hospital of South Bend23, University of Texas at Austin24, Johns Hopkins University25
TL;DR: An international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance recommended that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences.
Abstract: Purpose To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. Results Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. Recommendations The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.
3,902 citations
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Utah2, University of Rochester3, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust4, National Institutes of Health5, Stanford University6, Washington University in St. Louis7, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research8, University of Sydney9, St. Jude Medical Center10, University of Toronto11, Mayo Clinic12, American Society of Clinical Oncology13, University of Southern California14, North Carolina State University15, Indiana University16, University of Milan17, University of Michigan18
TL;DR: The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive).
Abstract: Purpose
To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer.
2,934 citations
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Utah2, University of Rochester3, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust4, National Institutes of Health5, Stanford University6, Washington University in St. Louis7, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research8, University of Sydney9, St. Jude Medical Center10, University of Toronto11, Mayo Clinic12, American Society of Clinical Oncology13, University of Southern California14, North Carolina State University15, Indiana University16, University of Milan17, University of Michigan18
TL;DR: The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive).
Abstract: Purpose.—To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in b...
2,817 citations
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Utah2, Stanford University3, American Society of Clinical Oncology4, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research5, University of Sydney6, University of Nottingham7, St. Jude Medical Center8, University of Toronto9, Mayo Clinic10, University of Southern California11, Indiana University12, National Institutes of Health13, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust14
TL;DR: The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays.
Abstract: Purpose To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline. Methods Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations. Recommendations Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in > 10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended work-up for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥ 2.0; average HER2 copy number < 4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio < 2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥ 4.0 and < 6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results. Find additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .
1,100 citations
University of Utah1, University of Michigan2, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust3, Ohio State University4, Indiana University5, St. Jude Medical Center6, University of Queensland7, Beaumont Hospital8, BC Cancer Agency9, University of Rochester10, Harvard University11, American Society of Clinical Oncology12, National Institutes of Health13, Baylor College of Medicine14, Sungkyunkwan University15, University of the West of England16, Tohoku University17, Radboud University Nijmegen18, University of Toronto19, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System20, Mayo Clinic21, University of Washington22, Memorial Hospital of South Bend23, University of Texas at Austin24, Johns Hopkins University25
TL;DR: An international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance recommended that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences.
Abstract: Purpose To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. Results Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in pre-analytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. Recommendations The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.
700 citations
Authors
Showing all 93 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patrick L. Fitzgibbons | 34 | 74 | 14376 |
| Alan de la Rama | 25 | 51 | 2483 |
| Yunn Yi Chen | 22 | 29 | 3414 |
| Paul A. Levine | 21 | 65 | 1804 |
| Rahul N. Doshi | 18 | 72 | 2202 |
| Samantha A. Spencer | 15 | 50 | 1681 |
| Patrick L. Fitzgibbons | 12 | 15 | 8915 |
| Tho Hoang Nguyen | 11 | 21 | 907 |
| Andrew L. Concoff | 11 | 17 | 498 |
| Hamed Farid | 10 | 16 | 446 |
| J Wang | 8 | 17 | 310 |
| Eduardo A. Tovar | 6 | 9 | 89 |
| Eduardo A. Tovar | 5 | 12 | 243 |
| Alan Borsari | 5 | 6 | 124 |
| Brian P. Riff | 4 | 10 | 102 |