Literature DB >> 22527109

Assessment accuracy of core needle biopsy for hormone receptors in breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

Shichao Li1, Xinhua Yang, Yi Zhang, Linjun Fan, Fan Zhang, Li Chen, Yan Zhou, Xianchun Chen, Jun Jiang.   

Abstract

The concordance of hormone receptors (HR) status identified by core needle biopsy (CNB) compared with excisional biopsy (EB) has been widely reported, but results were extremely variable and underpowered. To derive a more precise estimation of assessment accuracy of CNB for HR in breast cancer, we conducted a meta-analysis of all eligible studies comparing concordance or disconcordance between CNB and EB for HR status. Eligible articles were identified by search of databases including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedical Literature database for the period up to November 2011, and the reference lists of identified studies, relevant reviews, meta-analyses, and abstracts from recent conference proceedings were reviewed as a augmented searching. Finally, a total of 21 articles involving 2,450 patients for estrogen receptor (ER) and 2,448 patients for progesterone receptor (PR) were included and analyzed in this analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. The overall aggrement between CNB and EB were 92.8 % for ER (κ = 0.78) and 85.2 % for PR (κ = 0.66), indicating a good agreement in PR and a better result in ER. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 97.3 % (95 % CI 96.0-98.2) and 82.0 % (95 % CI 68.2-90.6) for ER, and the corresponding values for PR were 92.3 % (95 % CI 88.2-95.1) and 76.5 % (95 % CI 64.6-85.3), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratios was 5.39 % (95 % CI 2.92-9.97) and the negative likelihood ratios was 0.03 % (95 % CI 0.02-0.05) for ER, the corresponding values for PR were 3.93 % (95 % CI 2.53-6.11) and 0.10 % (95 % CI 0.07-0.16), respectively. In summary, although a good agreement was observed between CNB and EB for both ER and PR, we still suggest that negative HR testing results should be interpreted with caution or repeated on EB.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22527109     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-2063-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  14 in total

1.  Comparison of Core Needle Biopsy and Excision Specimens for the Accurate Evaluation of Breast Cancer Molecular Markers: a Report of 1003 Cases.

Authors:  Jie Chen; Zu Wang; Qing Lv; Zhenggui Du; Qiuwen Tan; Di Zhang; Bingjun Xiong; Helin Zeng; Juxiang Gou
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 3.201

2.  Performance of Three-Biomarker Immunohistochemistry for Intrinsic Breast Cancer Subtyping in the AMBER Consortium.

Authors:  Emma H Allott; Stephanie M Cohen; Joseph Geradts; Xuezheng Sun; Thaer Khoury; Wiam Bshara; Gary R Zirpoli; C Ryan Miller; Helena Hwang; Leigh B Thorne; Siobhan O'Connor; Chiu-Kit Tse; Mary B Bell; Zhiyuan Hu; Yan Li; Erin L Kirk; Traci N Bethea; Charles M Perou; Julie R Palmer; Christine B Ambrosone; Andrew F Olshan; Melissa A Troester
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Concordance of the molecular subtype classification between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen in primary breast cancer.

Authors:  M Pölcher; M Braun; M Tischitz; M Hamann; N Szeterlak; A Kriegmair; C Brambs; C Becker; O Stoetzer
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-02-14       Impact factor: 2.344

Review 4.  Status quo and development trend of breast biopsy technology.

Authors:  Yan-Jun Zhang; Lichun Wei; Jie Li; Yi-Qiong Zheng; Xi-Ru Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2013-02

5.  Influence of biospecimen variables on proteomic biomarkers in breast cancer.

Authors:  Funda Meric-Bernstam; Argun Akcakanat; Huiqin Chen; Aysegul Sahin; Emily Tarco; Selin Carkaci; Beatriz E Adrada; Gopal Singh; Kim-Anh Do; Zerzhinski M Garces; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Gildy Babiera; Isabelle Bedrosian; Rosa Hwang; Savitri Krishnamurthy; William F Symmans; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Gordon B Mills
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Is the 21-Gene Recurrence Score on Core Needle Biopsy Equivalent to Surgical Specimen in Early-Stage Breast Cancer? A Comparison of Gene Expression Between Paired Core Needle Biopsy and Surgical Specimens.

Authors:  Javier I J Orozco; Shu-Ching Chang; Diego M Marzese; Janie G Grumley; Chikako Matsuba; Miquel Ensenyat-Mendez; Gary L Grunkemeier
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Digital quantification of gene expression in sequential breast cancer biopsies reveals activation of an immune response.

Authors:  Rinath M Jeselsohn; Lillian Werner; Meredith M Regan; Aquila Fatima; Lauren Gilmore; Laura C Collins; Andrew H Beck; Shannon T Bailey; Housheng Hansen He; Gilles Buchwalter; Myles Brown; J Dirk Iglehart; Andrea Richardson; Steven E Come
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Accuracy of estrogen and progesterone receptor assessment in core needle biopsy specimens of breast cancer.

Authors:  Ramesh Omranipour; Sadaf Alipour; Maryam Hadji; Forouzandeh Fereidooni; Issa Jahanzad; Khojasteh Bagheri
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 0.611

9.  Intratumoral heterogeneity as a source of discordance in breast cancer biomarker classification.

Authors:  Emma H Allott; Joseph Geradts; Xuezheng Sun; Stephanie M Cohen; Gary R Zirpoli; Thaer Khoury; Wiam Bshara; Mengjie Chen; Mark E Sherman; Julie R Palmer; Christine B Ambrosone; Andrew F Olshan; Melissa A Troester
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  A prospective comparison of ER, PR, Ki67 and gene expression in paired sequential core biopsies of primary, untreated breast cancer.

Authors:  Sirwan M Hadad; Lee B Jordan; Pankaj G Roy; Colin A Purdie; Takayuki Iwamoto; Lajos Pusztai; Stacy L Moulder-Thompson; Alastair M Thompson
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.