Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24934660›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic pathology2014

A novel model for Ki67 assessment in breast cancer.

Quinci Romero, Pär-Ola Bendahl, Mårten Fernö, Dorthe Grabau, Signe Borgquist

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04403984 (Investigation of the Prognostic Value of Genomic Alterations or Protein Expression in Patients With Operated Early Breast Cancer of Luminal A or Luminal B Subtypes), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04403984 unknown statusnot on this map

Investigation of the Prognostic Value of Genomic Alterations or Protein Expression in Patients With Operated Early Breast Cancer of Luminal A or Luminal B Subtypes

TypeobservationalSponsorHellenic Cooperative Oncology GroupRan2013 to 2023Enrolled750ConditionsBreast Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Digital image analysis outperforms manual biomarker assessment in breast cancer.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Quinci Romero
Pär-Ola Bendahl
Mårten Fernö
Dorthe Grabau
Signe BorgquistDivision of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, SE-221 85 Lund, Sweden. signe.borgquist@med.lu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKi67 is currently the proliferation biomarker of choice, with both prognostic and predictive value in breast cancer. A lack of consensus regarding Ki67 use in pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical practice may hinder its formal acceptance in the clinical setting.

methodsOne hundred breast cancer samples were stained for Ki67. A standard estimation of Ki67 using fixed denominators of 200, 400 and 1 000 counted tumor cells was performed, and a cut-off at 20% was applied, Ki67static. A novel stepwise counting strategy for Ki67 estimation, Ki67scs, was developed based on rejection regions derived from exact two-sided binomial confidence intervals for proportions. Ki67scs was defined by the following parameters: the cut-off (20%), minimum (50) and maximum (400) number of tumor cells to count, increment (10) and overall significance level of the test procedure (0.05). Results from Ki67scs were compared to results from the Ki67static estimation with fixed denominators.

resultsFor Ki67scs, the median number of tumor cells needed to determine Ki67 status was 100; the average, 175. Among 38 highly proliferative samples, the average Ki67scs fraction was 45%. For these samples, the fraction decreased from 39% to 37% to 35% with static counting of 200, 400 and 1 000 cells, respectively. The largest absolute difference between the estimation methods was 23% (42% (Ki67scs) vs. 19% (Ki67static)) and resulted in an altered sample classification. Among the 82 unequivocal samples, 74 samples received the same classification using both Ki67scs and Ki67static. Of the eight disparate samples, seven were classified highly proliferative by Ki67static when 200 cells were counted; whereas all eight cases were classified as low proliferative when 1 000 cells were counted.

conclusionsKi67 estimation using fixed denominators may be inadequate, particularly for tumors demonstrating extensive heterogeneity. We propose a time saving stepwise counting strategy, which acknowledges small highly proliferative hot spots. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/3588156111195336.

Indexed as

Cell ProliferationModels, StatisticalBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsCell CountFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryKi-67 AntigenObserver VariationPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesKi-67 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID24934660
PMCPMC4069280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.