↓ Skip to main content

Immunohistochemical expression of HER2 in breast cancer: socioeconomic impact of inaccurate tests

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Immunohistochemical expression of HER2 in breast cancer: socioeconomic impact of inaccurate tests
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1018-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mogens Vyberg, Søren Nielsen, Rasmus Røge, Beth Sheppard, Jim Ranger-Moore, Eric Walk, Juliane Gartemann, Ulrich-Peter Rohr, Volker Teichgräber

Abstract

Treatment for patients with breast cancer (BC) is guided by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. The patient's HER2 status is assessed using US Food and Drug Administration-approved in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunohistochemical (IHC) tests and laboratory-developed IVD tests. We analysed HER2 testing accuracy using data from the Nordic Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (NordiQC) HER2 IHC programme; results were used in an economic BC treatment model. Data were obtained from NordiQC HER2 BC surveys performed from 2008 to 2012. False-negative (FN) and false-positive (FP) rates for approved and laboratory-developed IVDs were used to estimate direct costs, loss of survival, productivity benefit and quality-adjusted life-years. In the absence of consistent and accessible clinical and economic data from countries participating in the NordiQC programme, United States productivity data, healthcare costs and patient numbers were used as a surrogate in order to estimate the potential impact of selecting an approved or laboratory-developed IVDs. In total, 1703 tests were performed. Pooled FN rates were 11 % for approved IVDs and 25 % for laboratory-developed IVDs; FP rates were 0 % and 5 %, respectively. Using these FP and FN rates in the economic model and applying them to the United States BC population, approved IVD tests would result in better clinical outcomes, i.e., better survival and fewer disease recurrences/progressions, and lower costs, i.e., total direct costs and lost productivity, versus laboratory-developed IVD tests. Every $1 saved by laboratories by using cheaper reagents could potentially result in approximately $6 additional costs to the healthcare system. The results of this analysis suggest that incorrect HER2 test results have far-reaching clinical and economic consequences.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 8 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,446,606
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,626
of 7,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,112
of 266,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#83
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 266,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.