Skip to content

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

Immunohistochemical HER2 Status Evaluation In Breast Cancer Pathology Samples: A Multicenter, Parallel-Design Concordance Study

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02580799
Enrollment
30
Registered
2015-10-20
Start date
2014-02-28
Completion date
2014-10-31
Last updated
2016-02-22

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Breast Cancer

Brief summary

A multi-center non-interventional, in-vitro trial for evaluation of concordance of the results for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) expression by the Immunohistochemical (IHC) method in pathological samples collected from participants with breast cancer.

Detailed description

For accurate selection of participants who will be treated with anti-HER2, primary crucial thing to do is the right identification of HER2 in breast tumor cells. The advantages and disadvantages of IHC and In-Situ Hybridization (ISH) for the detection of HER2 status is still disputable. It is generally agreed on that HER2 study should be applied on all invasive breast cancer participants. It can be used together with IHC which measures HER2 protein expression or ISH which assesses HER2 gene amplification. With regard to IHC, the inconsistency of sensitivity and specificity of marketed antibodies, differences in interpretation and technical artifacts cause problems in diagnosis on occasion. There is not enough study on reasons which cause the consistence and discrepancies between laboratories in HER2 detection with IHC method.

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

Hoffmann-La Roche
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Observational model
CASE_CONTROL
Time perspective
CROSS_SECTIONAL

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 74 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Samples that fulfill all of the criteria will be evaluated for the study. * Samples of women aged greater than or equal to (\>/=) 18 and less than (\<) 75 years * Tumor samples already diagnosed based on the IHC score of 0 to +3 * Samples of primary lesions excluding lymph nodes * 10 percent (%) neutral buffered formalin-fixed and paraffin embedded tissue samples

Exclusion criteria

Samples that fulfill any of the criteria below will not be included in the study. * Non-invasive ductal carcinoma (NOS) samples * Tru-cut biopsies * Non-breast cancer pathological samples

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Sites C, D and E Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesUp to 70 daysInter-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.
Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)Up to 70 daysIHC 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.
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 SamplesUp to 70 daysInter-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.
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)Up to 70 daysIHC 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.
Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Site B and Others (Sites C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesUp to 70 daysInter-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.
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)Up to 70 daysIHC 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.
Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)Up to 70 daysIHC 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.
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 SamplesUp to 70 daysInter-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.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen RetrievalUp to 70 daysFixation 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.
Percentage of Participants With Diagnosis of Primary TumorUp to 70 daysPrimary tumor diagnosis was classified into invasive ductal carcinoma, invasive ductal carcinoma + integrin linked kinase (ILK) antibody and mixed (invasive ductal + lobular) and reported.
Percentage of Participants With Different IHC ResultsUp to 70 daysThe 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.
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary AntibodyUp to 70 daysThe primary antibodies included; Biocabe EP 10454, Cerb B2 (SP3 clone), Her2 Neu (SP3) Cell marque, Neomarkers (thermo) cerb B2-Ab-17 and Thermo SP3.
Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionUp to 70 daysTNM 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.
Percentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreUp to 70 daysModified 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.
Percentage of Participants With Pathological GradeUp to 70 daysModified 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.
Percentage of Participants With Different Hormone ReceptorsUp to 70 daysPresence of hormone receptors was examined by the amount of uptake of estrogen and progesterone hormones when analyzed using IHC staining procedure.
Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone ReceptorsUp to 70 daysThe 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.
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on CountryUp to 70 daysReference 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.
Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide StainersUp to 70 daysDifferent 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).

Countries

Turkey (Türkiye)

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

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

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Breast Cancer Pathology Participants
Breast cancer pathology participants were evaluated for a period of 70 days.
30
Total30

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicBreast Cancer Pathology Participants
Age, Customized
≥ 18 and < 75 years
30 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
30 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 0
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 0

Outcome results

Primary

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

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesAbroad: Site A0.002 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesAbroad: Site B0.260 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesAbroad: Site C0.226 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesAbroad: Site D-0.063 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesAbroad: Site E0.04 kappa coefficient
Comparison: Abroad: Site A variability assessmentp-value: =0.988Chi-squared
Comparison: Abroad: Site B variability assessmentp-value: =0.008Chi-squared
Comparison: Abroad: Site C variability assessmentp-value: =0.031Chi-squared
Comparison: Abroad: Site D variability assessmentp-value: =0.554Chi-squared
Comparison: Abroad: Site E variability assessmentp-value: =0.709Chi-squared
Primary

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

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Site B and Others (Sites C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesSite B: Site C0.224 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Site B and Others (Sites C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesSite B: Site D0.000 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Site B and Others (Sites C, D and E) Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesSite B: Site E0.05 kappa coefficient
Comparison: Site B: Site C variability assessmentp-value: =0.054Chi-squared
Comparison: Site B: Site D variability assessmentp-value: =1Chi-squared
Comparison: Site B: Site E variability assessmentp-value: =0.968Chi-squared
Primary

Kappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Sites C, D and E Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue Samples

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Sites C, D and E Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesSite C: Site D-0.137 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Sites C, D and E Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesSite C: Site E0.259 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa Coefficient as a Measure of Agreement Between Sites C, D and E Concerning the IHC Test of Breast Tissue SamplesSite D: Site E-0.317 kappa coefficient
Comparison: Site C: Site D variability assessmentp-value: =0.246Chi-squared
Comparison: Site C: Site E variability assessmentp-value: =0.032Chi-squared
Comparison: Site D: Site E variability assessmentp-value: =0.007Chi-squared
Primary

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

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa 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 SamplesSite A: Site B0.171 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa 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 SamplesSite A: Site C0.090 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa 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 SamplesSite A: Site D-0.148 kappa coefficient
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsKappa 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 SamplesSite A: Site E-0.124 kappa coefficient
Comparison: Site A: Site B variability assessmentp-value: =0.137Chi-squared
Comparison: Site A: Site C variability assessmentp-value: =0.454Chi-squared
Comparison: Site A: Site D variability assessmentp-value: =0.211Chi-squared
Comparison: Site A: Site E variability assessmentp-value: =0.294Chi-squared
Primary

Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Abroad and Trial Sites (A, B, C, D and E)

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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

Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Site C and Others (Sites D and E)

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.

Time frame: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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

Percentage of Participants With IHC Evaluation Between Sites B and Others (Sites C, D and E)

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.

Time frame: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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

Percentage of Participants With Immunohistochemical (IHC) Evaluation Between Site A and Others (Sites B, C, D and E)

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.

Time frame: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage 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
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Diagnosis of Primary Tumor

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

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Diagnosis of Primary TumorInvasive ductal carcinoma93.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Diagnosis of Primary TumorInvasive ductal carcinoma + ILK3.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Diagnosis of Primary TumorMixed (Invasive Ductal+Lobular)3.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Different Hormone Receptors

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

Time frame: Up to 70 days

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Different Hormone ReceptorsEstrogen receptors71.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Different Hormone ReceptorsProgesterone receptors42.69 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Different IHC Results

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Different IHC ResultsIHC 036.7 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Different IHC ResultsIHC 1+20.7 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Different IHC ResultsIHC 2+20.7 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Different IHC ResultsIHC 3+22.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval1 hour CC116.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval30 min CC1 mild32.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen Retrieval64 min CC116.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen RetrievalCC1 EDTA standard16.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Antigen RetrievalCC2 30 min20.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Country

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on CountryTurkey80.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on CountryAbroad20.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide Stainers

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).

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide StainersVentana Benchmark 4XT16.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide StainersVentana20.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide StainersVentana Benchmark Ultra16.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Different Automated Slide StainersVentana Benchmark XT48.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary Antibody

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary AntibodyBiocabe EP 1045416.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary AntibodyCerb B2 (SP3 clone)16.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary AntibodyHer2 Neu (SP3) Cell marque16.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary AntibodyNeomarkers (thermo) cerb B2-Ab-1716.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With HER2 Test Form Based on Primary AntibodyThermo SP336.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council Decision

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.

Time frame: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionT1 (n=24)33.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionT2 (n=24)54.2 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionT3 (n=24)8.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionTX (n=24)4.2 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionN0 (n=24)50.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionN1 (n=24)16.7 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionN2 (n=24)20.8 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionN3 (n=24)8.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionNX (n=24)4.2 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionM0 (n=18)50.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionM1 (n=18)11.1 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Initial Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) Stage According to Council DecisionMX (n=18)38.9 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Pathological Grade

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological GradeGrade I Tumor0.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological GradeGrade II Tumor56.7 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological GradeGrade III Tumor43.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Pathological Score

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreTS 10.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreTS 243.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreTS 356.7 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreNS 10.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreNS 233.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreNS 366.7 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreMS 120.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreMS 263.3 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Pathological ScoreMS 316.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone Receptors

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.

Time frame: Up to 70 days

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone ReceptorsEstrogen receptor density unknown4.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone ReceptorsEstrogen receptor density +8.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone ReceptorsEstrogen receptor density ++16.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone ReceptorsEstrogen receptor density +++72.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone ReceptorsProgesterone receptor density 012.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone ReceptorsProgesterone receptor density ++28.0 percentage of participants
Breast Cancer Pathology ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Specified Density of Hormone ReceptorsProgesterone receptor density +++60.0 percentage of participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026