| Title |
Interpretation of HER2 tests in gastric cancer: confirmation of interobserver differences and validation of a QA/QC educational program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virchows Archiv, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00428-014-1567-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ryoji Kushima, Takeshi Kuwata, Takashi Yao, Hiroshi Kuriki, Kaoru Hashizume, Shinobu Masuda, Hitoshi Tsuda, Atsushi Ochiai |
| Abstract |
Accurate testing for human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-positive status is now mandatory to identify gastric cancer patients that will respond to trastuzumab treatment. Immunohistochemistry testing is the primary method used in hospitals. We performed a study of diagnostic accuracy by assessing interobserver variability in immunohistochemistry scoring of HER2 and determined the effectiveness of an educational program for general pathologists that used full sections of gastric cancer specimens. A first ring study (Japanese gastric cancer [JGC] ring study) was performed by five expert pathologists, using 50 whole surgical sections selected by a coordinator, to confirm interobserver discrepancies. A second study (quality assurance/quality control program) involved administration of an educational program to 49 general pathologists that consisted of (i) comments and explanation for a set of pre-educational program cases, (ii) a lecture, and (iii) presentation of typical and special cases for discussion. Effectiveness was measured by comparing indices of the difference between scores before and after the program. The JGC ring study demonstrated good agreement in the interpretation of HER2-immunohistochemistry. Kappa coefficients among the five observers were 0.73 (substantial) and 0.84 (almost perfect) in 4 × 4 and 3 × 3 cross tests, respectively. In the second study, the concordance rate and kappa coefficients improved from pre-educational program levels of 78.6 % and 0.68, respectively, to post-educational program levels of 87.1 % and 0.79, respectively. The present results suggest that effective educational programs reduce interobserver differences between pathologists and provide optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 23% |
| Researcher | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 15% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 15% |
| Psychology | 2 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2014.
All research outputs
#13,710,226
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Virchows Archiv
#1,055
of 1,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,770
of 221,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virchows Archiv
#17
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,941 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 221,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.