ArticleDer Pathologe2006
[Improvement of breast cancer grading in punch biopsies: grading with the Ki-67 marker].
Article in Der Pathologe, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Ki67: biological intertumor variance versus variance of assay].Der Pathologe · 2018Review
- Netrin-1 promotes glioma growth by activating NF-κB via UNC5A.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- [Histological grading of breast cancer].Der Pathologe · 2016Review
- [Determination of proliferation in breast cancer by immunohistochemical detection of Ki-67].Der Pathologe · 2014Article
- [Translational research and diagnostics for breast cancer].Der Pathologe · 2012Review
- [Beyond staging, typing and grading. New challenges in breast cancer pathology].Der Pathologe · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The grading of invasive breast cancers according to Bloom and Richardson (Nottingham modification) provides one of the most important prognostic factors in addition to size and the status of the lymph nodes. Diagnostic reproducibility has been problematic in daily practice as the required criteria for selection and extent of the grading area are frequently not present in the punch biopsies.A total of 346 cases were retrospectively used to compare routine grading from surgical preparations with an equivalently small sample from punch biopsies. In addition, a modified grading of these small samples was developed with Ki-67 immunochemistry and the measurement of core size. In the case of modified grading, 1-3 points were given for Ki-67 and average maximum core diameter. Tubule development was evaluated with 1 or 2 points. A comparison for recurrence free survival and total survival showed significant prognostic differences between 3-5 points (low risk) and 6-8 points (high risk) in uni- and multivariate analyses. The evaluation criteria for Nottingham-Bloom-Richardson grading in a small tissue sample, such as that from a punch biopsy, can hardly be fulfilled. In our series, prognostic value was only found for nodal negative cases. After modification using objective parameters such as nuclear size measurement and Ki-67 proliferation index, a small tissue sample can prove to be of significant prognostic value for nodal negative as well as nodal positive cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16896675What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.