Trial Outcomes & Findings for Study of Human Epidermal Growth Receptor (HER2) Status Evaluation in Breast Cancer Pathology Samples (NCT NCT02580799)

NCT ID: NCT02580799

Last Updated: 2016-02-22

Results Overview

IHC is a staining process performed on fresh/frozen breast cancer tissue. IHC is used to show whether or not the cancer cells have Human Epidermal Growth Receptor (HER2) and/or hormone receptors on their surface. The IHC test gives a score of 0 to 3+ that measures the amount of HER2 receptor protein on the surface of cells in a breast cancer tissue sample. Score 0: cells free from immune staining, score 1 (+): is concluded in the case of stains not completely membranous and which do not surround the membranes regardless of quantity in the cells, or weak stains surrounding the entire membrane in less than 10% of the cells. Score 2 (++): is concluded in the presence of a moderate staining surrounding the cytoplasmic membrane in at least 10%, or strong membranous staining in less than 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells. Score 3 (+++): is concluded where IHC yields strong staining surrounding the entire cytoplasmic membrane in at least 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Target enrollment

30 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Up to 70 days

Results posted on

2016-02-22

Participant Flow

A total of 5 trial sites (named as Sites A to E) along with 1 reference site (named as Abroad) participated in this study.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Overall Study
STARTED
30
Overall Study
COMPLETED
30
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
0

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

Study of Human Epidermal Growth Receptor (HER2) Status Evaluation in Breast Cancer Pathology Samples

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=30 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Age, Customized
≥ 18 and < 75 years
30 participants
n=99 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
30 Participants
n=99 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants
n=99 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure and "n" included the number of participants evaluable for the specified category.

IHC is a staining process performed on fresh/frozen breast cancer tissue. IHC is used to show whether or not the cancer cells have Human Epidermal Growth Receptor (HER2) and/or hormone receptors on their surface. The IHC test gives a score of 0 to 3+ that measures the amount of HER2 receptor protein on the surface of cells in a breast cancer tissue sample. Score 0: cells free from immune staining, score 1 (+): is concluded in the case of stains not completely membranous and which do not surround the membranes regardless of quantity in the cells, or weak stains surrounding the entire membrane in less than 10% of the cells. Score 2 (++): is concluded in the presence of a moderate staining surrounding the cytoplasmic membrane in at least 10%, or strong membranous staining in less than 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells. Score 3 (+++): is concluded where IHC yields strong staining surrounding the entire cytoplasmic membrane in at least 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=24 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (0): Site B (0) (n=9)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (0): Site B (1+) (n=9)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (0): Site B (2+) (n=9)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (0): Site B (3+) (n=9)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (1+): Site B (0) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (1+): Site B (1+) (n=6)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (1+): Site B (2+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (1+): Site B (3+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (2+): Site B (0) (n=5)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (2+): Site B (1+) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (2+): Site B (2+) (n=5)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (2+): Site B (3+) (n=5)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (3+): Site B (0) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (3+): Site B (1+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (3+): Site B (2+) (n=4)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (3+): Site B (3+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)
Site A (0): Site C (0) (n=9)
20.8 percentage of participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure.

Inter-laboratory variation between the sites was assessed using Kappa test, K values were interpreted as follows: a) less than (\<) 0: less than chance agreement, b) 0.01-0.20: slight agreement, c) 0.21-0.40: fair agreement, d) 0.41-0.60: moderate agreement, e) 0.61-0.80: substantial agreement, and f) 0.81-0.99: almost perfect agreement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=24 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Kappa Coefficient (K) as a Measure of Agreement Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site A: Site B
0.171 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient (K) as a Measure of Agreement Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site A: Site C
0.090 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient (K) as a Measure of Agreement Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site A: Site D
-0.148 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient (K) as a Measure of Agreement Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site A: Site E
-0.124 kappa coefficient

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure and "n" included the number of participants evaluable for the specified category.

IHC is a staining process performed on fresh/frozen breast cancer tissue. IHC is used to show whether or not the cancer cells have HER2 and/or hormone receptors on their surface. The IHC test gives a score of 0 to 3+ that measures the amount of HER2 receptor protein on the surface of cells in a breast cancer tissue sample. Score 0: cells free from immune staining, score 1 (+): is concluded in the case of stains not completely membranous and which do not surround the membranes regardless of quantity in the cells, or weak stains surrounding the entire membrane in less than 10% of the cells. Score 2 (++): is concluded in the presence of a moderate staining surrounding the cytoplasmic membrane in at least 10%, or strong membranous staining in less than 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells. Score 3 (+++): is concluded where IHC yields strong staining surrounding the entire cytoplasmic membrane in at least 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=24 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site C (1+) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site C (2+) (n=5)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site C (3+) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site C (0) (n=7)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site C (1+) (n=7)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site C (0) (n=5)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site C (2+) (n=7)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site C (3+) (n=7)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site C (0) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site C (1+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site C (2+) (n=6)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site C (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site C (0) (n=6)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site C (1+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site C (2+) (n=6)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site C (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site D (0) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site D (1+) (n=5)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site D (+2) (n=5)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site D (3+) (n=5)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site D (0) (n=7)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site D (1+) (n=7)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site D (2+) (n=7)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site D (3+) (n=7)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site D (0) (n=6)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site D (1+) (n=6)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site D (2+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site D (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site D (0) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site D (1+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site D (2+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site D (3+) (n=6)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site E (0) (n=5)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site E (1+) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site E (2+) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (0): Site E (3+) (n=5)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site E (0) (n=7)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site E (1+) (n=7)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site E (2+) (n=7)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (1+): Site E (3+) (n=7)
20.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site E (0) (n=6)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site E (1+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site E (2+) (n=6)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (2+): Site E (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site E (0) (n=6)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site E (1+) (n=6)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site E (2+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)
Site B (3+): Site E (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure.

Inter-laboratory variation between the sites was assessed using Kappa test, K values to be interpreted as follows: a) \<0: less than chance agreement, b) 0.01-0.20: slight agreement, c) 0.21-0.40: fair agreement, d) 0.41-0.60: moderate agreement, e) 0.61-0.80: substantial agreement, and f) 0.81-0.99: almost perfect agreement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=24 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Site B and Others (Sites C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site B: Site D
0.000 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Site B and Others (Sites C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site B: Site C
0.224 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Site B and Others (Sites C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site B: Site E
0.05 kappa coefficient

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure and "n" included the number of participants evaluable for the specified category.

IHC is a staining process performed on fresh/frozen breast cancer tissue. IHC is used to show whether or not the cancer cells have HER2 and/or hormone receptors on their surface. The IHC test gives a score of 0 to 3+ that measures the amount of HER2 receptor protein on the surface of cells in a breast cancer tissue sample. Score 0: cells free from immune staining, score 1 (+): is concluded in the case of stains not completely membranous and which do not surround the membranes regardless of quantity in the cells, or weak stains surrounding the entire membrane in less than 10% of the cells. Score 2 (++): is concluded in the presence of a moderate staining surrounding the cytoplasmic membrane in at least 10%, or strong membranous staining in less than 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells. Score 3 (+++): is concluded where IHC yields strong staining surrounding the entire cytoplasmic membrane in at least 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=24 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (0): Site D (0) (n=9)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (0): Site D (1+) (n=9)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (0): Site D (2+) (n=9)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (0): Site D (3+) (n=9)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (1+): Site D (0) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (1+): Site D (1+) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (1+): Site D (2+) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (1+): Site D (3+) (n=5)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (2+): Site D (0) (n=6)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (2+): Site D (1+) (n=6)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (2+): Site D (2+) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (2+): Site D (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (3+): Site D (0) (n=4)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (3+): Site D (1+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (3+): Site D (2+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (3+): Site D (3+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (0): Site E (0) (n=9)
25.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (0): Site E (1+) (n=9)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (0): Site E (2+) (n=9)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (0): Site E (3+) (n=9)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (1+): Site E (0) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (1+): Site E (1+) (n=5)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (1+): Site E (2+) (n=5)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (1+): Site E (3+) (n=5)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (2+): Site E (0) (n=6)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (2+): Site E (1+) (n=6)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (2+): Site E (2+) (n=6)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (2+): Site E (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (3+): Site E (0) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (3+): Site E (1+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (3+): Site E (2+) (n=4)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site C (3+): Site E (3+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (0): Site E (0) (n=10)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (0): Site E (1+) (n=10)
12.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (0): Site E (2+) (n=10)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (0): Site E (3+) (n=10)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (1+): Site E (0) (n=5)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (1+): Site E (1+) (n=5)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (1+): Site E (2+) (n=5)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (1+): Site E (3+) (n=5)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (2+): Site E (0) (n=2)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (2+): Site E (1+) (n=2)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (2+): Site E (2+) (n=2)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (2+): Site E (3+) (n=2)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (3+): Site E (0) (n=7)
20.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (3+): Site E (1+) (n=7)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (3+): Site E (2+) (n=7)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)
Site D (3+): Site E (3+) (n=7)
0.0 percentage of participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure.

Inter-laboratory variation between the sites was assessed using Kappa test, K values to be interpreted as follows: a) \<0: less than chance agreement, b) 0.01-0.20: slight agreement, c) 0.21-0.40: fair agreement, d) 0.41-0.60: moderate agreement, e) 0.61-0.80: substantial agreement, and f) 0.81-0.99: almost perfect agreement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=24 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Sites C, D and E Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site C: Site D
-0.137 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Sites C, D and E Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site C: Site E
0.259 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Sites C, D and E Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Site D: Site E
-0.317 kappa coefficient

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. "n" included the number of participants evaluable for the specified category.

IHC is a staining process performed on fresh/frozen breast cancer tissue. IHC is used to show whether or not the cancer cells have HER2 and/or hormone receptors on their surface. The IHC test gives a score of 0 to 3+ that measures the amount of HER2 receptor protein on the surface of cells in a breast cancer tissue sample. Score 0: cells free from immune staining, score 1 (+): is concluded in the case of stains not completely membranous and which do not surround the membranes regardless of quantity in the cells, or weak stains surrounding the entire membrane in less than 10% of the cells. Score 2 (++): is concluded in the presence of a moderate staining surrounding the cytoplasmic membrane in at least 10%, or strong membranous staining in less than 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells. Score 3 (+++): is concluded where IHC yields strong staining surrounding the entire cytoplasmic membrane in at least 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=30 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site A (0) (n=13)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site A (1+) (n=13)
13.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site A (2+) (n=13)
10.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site A (3+) (n=13)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site A (0) (n=4)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site A (1+) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site A (2+) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site A (3+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site A (0) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site A (1+) (n=6)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site A (2+) (n=6)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site A (3+) (n=6)
10.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site A (0) (n=7)
10.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site A (1+) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site A (2+) (n=7)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site A (3+) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site B (0) (n=13)
13.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site B (1+) (n=13)
13.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site B (2+) (n=13)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site B (3+) (n=13)
10.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site B (0) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site B (1+) (n=4)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site B (2+) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site B (3+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site B (0) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site B (1+) (n=6)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site B (2+) (n=6)
13.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site B (3+) (n=6)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site B (0) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site B (1+) (n=7)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site B (2+) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site B (3+) (n=7)
10.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site C (0) (n=13)
20.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site C (1+) (n=13)
10.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site C (2+) (n=13)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site C (3+) (n=13)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site C (0) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site C (1+) (n=4)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site C (2+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site C (3+) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site C (0) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+: Site C (1+) (n=6)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site C (2+) (n=6)
13.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site C (3+) (n=6)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site C (0) (n=7)
10.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site C (1+) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site C (2+) (n=7)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site C (3+) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site D (0) (n=13)
10.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site D (1+) (n=13)
13.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site D (2+) (n=13)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site D (3+) (n=13)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site D (0) (n=4)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site D (1+) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site D (2+) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site D (3+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site D (0) (n=6)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site D (1+) (n=6)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site D (2+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site D (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site D (0) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site D (1+) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site D (2+) (n=7)
6.6 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site D (3+) (n=7)
9.9 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site E (0) (n=13)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site E (1+) (n=13)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site E (2+) (n=13)
13.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (0): Site E (3+) (n=13)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site E (0) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site E (1+) (n=4)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site E (2+) (n=4)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (1+): Site E (3+) (n=4)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site E (0) (n=6)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site E (1+) (n=6)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site E (2+) (n=6)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (2+): Site E (3+) (n=6)
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site E (0) (n=7)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site E (1+) (n=7)
6.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site E (2+) (n=7)
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)
Abroad (3+): Site E (3+) (n=7)
6.7 percentage of participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

Inter-laboratory variation between the sites was assessed using Kappa test, K values to be interpreted as follows: a) \<0: less than chance agreement, b) 0.01-0.20: slight agreement, c) 0.21-0.40: fair agreement, d) 0.41-0.60: moderate agreement, e) 0.61-0.80: substantial agreement, and f) 0.81-0.99: almost perfect agreement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=30 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Abroad: Site A
0.002 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Abroad: Site B
0.260 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Abroad: Site C
0.226 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Abroad: Site D
-0.063 kappa coefficient
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples
Abroad: Site E
0.04 kappa coefficient

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

Primary tumor diagnosis was classified into invasive ductal carcinoma, invasive ductal carcinoma + integrin linked kinase (ILK) antibody and mixed (invasive ductal + lobular) and reported.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=30 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With Diagnosis of Primary Tumor
Invasive ductal carcinoma
93.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Diagnosis of Primary Tumor
Invasive ductal carcinoma + ILK
3.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Diagnosis of Primary Tumor
Mixed (Invasive Ductal+Lobular)
3.3 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure and "n" included the number of participants evaluable for the specified category.

TNM system is based on size of primary tumor (T), amount of spread to lymph nodes (N) and presence of metastasis (M). T1: tumor ≤20 millimeters (mm), T2: tumor \>20 mm to ≤50 mm, T3: \>50 mm and TX: tumor cannot be assessed. N0: no lymph node metastasis, N1: metastasis to ipsilateral level I, II axillary lymph nodes, N2: N1 metastasis that is clinically fixed/matted or in clinically detected ipsilateral internal mammary nodes, N3: metastases in ipsilateral infraclavicular lymph nodes, with/without level I, II axillary node involvement, or in clinically detected ipsilateral internal mammary lymph nodes and clinically evident level I, II axillary lymph node metastasis; or metastasis in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, NX: Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed. M0: no clinical/radiographic evidence of distant metastasis, M1: distant detectable metastases as determined by clinical and radiographic means and/or histologically proven \>0.2 mm, and MX: metastases cannot be assessed.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=24 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
T1 (n=24)
33.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
T2 (n=24)
54.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
T3 (n=24)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
TX (n=24)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
N0 (n=24)
50.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
N1 (n=24)
16.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
N2 (n=24)
20.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
N3 (n=24)
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
NX (n=24)
4.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
M0 (n=18)
50.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
M1 (n=18)
11.1 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision
MX (n=18)
38.9 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

Modified Bloom-Richardson Grade scoring system was used which considers the amount of glandular/tubular differentiation, nuclear features and the mitotic activity of tumor cells. Tubular score (TS) 1: \>75 percent (%) of tumor area forming tubular structures, TS 2: 10% to 75% of tumor area forming tubular structures, TS 3: \<10% of tumor area forming tubular structures. Nuclear score (NS) 1: nuclei small with little increase in size in comparison with normal breast epithelial cells, regular outlines, uniform nuclear chromatin, little variation in size, NS 2: cells larger than normal with open vesicular nuclei, visible nucleoli, and moderate variability in both size and shape, NS 3: Vesicular nuclei, often with prominent nucleoli, exhibiting marked variation in size and shape, occasionally with very large and bizarre forms. Mitosis score (MS) 1: ≤7 mitoses per 10 high power fields, MS 2: 8-14 mitoses per 10 high power fields and MS 3: ≥15 mitoses per 10 high power fields.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=30 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
TS 1
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
TS 2
43.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
TS 3
56.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
NS 1
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
NS 2
33.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
NS 3
66.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
MS 1
20.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
MS 2
63.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score
MS 3
16.7 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

Modified Bloom-Richardson Grade scoring system was used which considers the amount of glandular/tubular differentiation, nuclear features and the mitotic activity of tumor cells. Tubular, Nuclear and Mitosis scoring pattern was discussed in outcome 11, each score was added to give a final total score ranging from 3-9. Tumors with 3, 4 or 5 points are classified as being of low malignancy or Grade I, those with 6 or 7 points of intermediate malignancy or Grade II, and those with 8 or 9 points of high malignancy or Grade III.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=30 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Grade
Grade I Tumor
0.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Grade
Grade II Tumor
56.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Pathological Grade
Grade III Tumor
43.3 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure.

Presence of hormone receptors was examined by the amount of uptake of estrogen and progesterone hormones when analyzed using IHC staining procedure.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=27 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With Different Hormone Receptors
Estrogen receptors
71.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Different Hormone Receptors
Progesterone receptors
42.69 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population. Here "number of participants analyzed" included evaluable for the outcome measure.

The specific density of hormone receptors was examined by the amount of uptake of estrogen and progesterone hormones when analyzed using IHC staining procedure. Score 0: cells free from immune staining, score 1 (+): is concluded in the case of stains not completely membranous and which do not surround the membranes regardless of quantity in the cells, or weak stains surrounding the entire membrane in less than 10% of the cells. Score 2 (++): is concluded in the presence of a moderate staining surrounding the cytoplasmic membrane in at least 10%, or strong membranous staining in less than 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells. Score 3 (+++): is concluded where IHC yields strong staining surrounding the entire cytoplasmic membrane in at least 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=25 Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone Receptors
Estrogen receptor density unknown
4.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone Receptors
Estrogen receptor density +
8.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone Receptors
Estrogen receptor density ++
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone Receptors
Estrogen receptor density +++
72.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone Receptors
Progesterone receptor density 0
12.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone Receptors
Progesterone receptor density ++
28.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone Receptors
Progesterone receptor density +++
60.0 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

Reference site was considered as Abroad and the tests were performed in a laboratory in Amsterdam, Netherlands. A total of 150 data registration forms (120 forms from trial sites \[24 from each site\] and 30 from the reference site) were collected.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=150 Data registration forms
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Country
Turkey
80.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Country
Abroad
20.0 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

Different slide stainers like Ventana, Ventana Benchmark 4XT, Ventana Benchmark Ultra and Ventana Benchmark XT were used to report HER2 test results on data registration forms (120 forms from trial sites \[24 from each site\] and 30 from the reference site).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=150 Data registration forms
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide Stainers
Ventana
20.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide Stainers
Ventana Benchmark 4XT
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide Stainers
Ventana Benchmark Ultra
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide Stainers
Ventana Benchmark XT
48.0 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

Fixation of tissue samples cross-link proteins and masks antigenic sites; antigen retrieval process was performed before IHC staining in order to reverse the masking of antigenic sites. Antigen retrieval process was performed in this study using the following solutions: 1 hour Cell Conditioning 1 (CC1), 30 minutes (min) CC1 mild, 64 min CC1, CC1 Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) standard, and Cell Conditioning 2 (CC2) 30 min.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=150 Data registration forms
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval
30 min CC1 mild
32.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval
1 hour CC1
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval
64 min CC1
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval
CC1 EDTA standard
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval
CC2 30 min
20.0 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

The primary antibodies included; Biocabe EP 10454, Cerb B2 (SP3 clone), Her2 Neu (SP3) Cell marque, Neomarkers (thermo) cerb B2-Ab-17 and Thermo SP3.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=150 Data registration forms
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary Antibody
Biocabe EP 10454
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary Antibody
Cerb B2 (SP3 clone)
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary Antibody
Her2 Neu (SP3) Cell marque
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary Antibody
Neomarkers (thermo) cerb B2-Ab-17
16.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary Antibody
Thermo SP3
36.0 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

The IHC test gives a score of 0 to 3+ that measures the amount of HER2 receptor protein on the surface of cells in a breast cancer tissue sample. If the score is 0 to 1+, it's called "HER2 negative." If the score is 2+, it's called "borderline." A score of 3+ is called "HER2 positive." Score 0: cells free from immune staining, score 1 (+): is concluded in the case of stains not completely membranous and which do not surround the membranes regardless of quantity in the cells, or weak stains surrounding the entire membrane in less than 10% of the cells. Score 2 (++): is concluded in the presence of a moderate staining surrounding the cytoplasmic membrane in at least 10%, or strong membranous staining in less than 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells. Score 3 (+++): is concluded where IHC yields strong staining surrounding the entire cytoplasmic membrane in at least 30% of the invasive carcinoma cells.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
n=150 Data registration forms
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
Percentage of Participants With Different IHC Results
IHC 0
36.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Different IHC Results
IHC 1+
20.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Different IHC Results
IHC 2+
20.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Different IHC Results
IHC 3+
22.0 percentage of participants

Adverse Events

Breast Cancer Pathology Participants

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Medical Communications

Hoffmann-LaRoche

Phone: 800-821-8590

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee The Study being conducted under this Agreement is part of the Overall Study. Investigator is free to publish in reputable journals or to present at professional conferences the results of the Study, but only after the first publication or presentation that involves the Overall Study. The Sponsor may request that Confidential Information be deleted and/or the publication be postponed in order to protect the Sponsor's intellectual property rights.
  • Publication restrictions are in place

Restriction type: OTHER