ReviewDer Pathologe2012
[Assessment of proliferation: core biopsy or resection specimen? Discrepancies in breast cancer with low and high proliferation].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of the Gene Expression Test ProsignaBreast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Ki-67 assessment in early breast cancer: SAKK28/12 validation study on the IBCSG VIII and IBCSG IX cohort.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Standardization for Ki-67 assessment in moderately differentiated breast cancer. A retrospective analysis of the SAKK 28/12 study.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of the proliferation fraction is becoming more and more important; however, there is no consensus concerning optimal validation. Depending on the institute the proliferation fraction is determined either from a core biopsy (SB) or resection specimen (OP). PATIENTS AND
methodsThe interobserver variability and the results of SB and OP were investigated whereby two pathologists independently estimated the proliferation fraction of 90 cases of invasive breast cancer. The results (Ki-67) were quantified, categorized, and compared.
resultsIdentical (accuracy of 5% steps) results between the 2 pathologists were achieved in 43% (n=39) for SB, 47% (n=42) for OP and 60% (n=54) for SB versus OP. When categorizing the proliferation fraction (low ≤ 15%, moderate 20-30% and high ≥ 35%) the following results were achieved: 76% (n=68) for SB, 82% (n=74) for OP and 81% (n=73) for SB versus OP.
conclusionsThere was a clear interobserver variability (SB: kappa=0.32, OP: kappa=0.34) but this could be dramatically improved by forming proliferation categories (SB: kappa=0.62, OP: kappa=0.72, 60 versus 81%). In SB with a low proliferation fraction a repeated analysis in OPs can be advisable as a higher proliferation fraction is observed in up to 12% of OPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22576598What 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.