ArticlePloS one2015
Standardization for Ki-67 assessment in moderately differentiated breast cancer. A retrospective analysis of the SAKK 28/12 study.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- An international reproducibility study validating quantitative determination of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR, and MKI67 mRNA in breast cancer using MammaTyper®.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2017Trial
- Digital counting of tissue cells for molecular analysis: the QuANTUM pipeline.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of Ki-67 expression and repeatability in breast cancer.Diagnostic pathology · 2022Article
- The additional value of ONEST (Observers Needed to Evaluate Subjective Tests) in assessing reproducibility of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Ki67 classification in breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Looking for more reliable biomarkers in breast cancer: Comparison between routine methods and RT-qPCR.PloS one · 2021Article
- Do YOU know the Ki-67 index of your breast cancer patients? Knowledge of your institution's Ki-67 index distribution and its robustness is essential for decision-making in early breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- Integration of Ki-67 index into AJCC 2018 staging provides additional prognostic information in breast tumours candidate for genomic profiling.British journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Ki67 and CD31 Differential Expression in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma and Its Mimickers: Association with Clinicopathological Criteria and Disease Advancement.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2020Article
- Variability of predictive markers (hormone receptors, Her2, Ki67) and intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer in four consecutive years 2015-2018.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- [Use of monoclonal antibodies in pathological diagnostics].Der Internist · 2019Review
- Ki-67 assessment in early breast cancer: SAKK28/12 validation study on the IBCSG VIII and IBCSG IX cohort.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- [Update of the German S3 breast cancer guideline : What is new for pathologists?]Der Pathologe · 2019Article
- Ki 67 assessment in breast cancer in an Egyptian population: a comparative study between manual assessment on optical microscopy and digital quantitative assessment.Diagnostic pathology · 2018Article
- Article
- Reproducibility and Prognostic Potential of Ki-67 Proliferation Index when Comparing Digital-Image Analysis with Standard Semi-Quantitative Evaluation in Breast Cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2018Article
- The use of automated Ki67 analysis to predict Oncotype DX risk-of-recurrence categories in early-stage breast cancer.PloS one · 2018Article
- A comparison of Ki-67 counting methods in luminal Breast Cancer: The Average Method vs. the Hot Spot Method.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
- A Comparison of Visual Assessment and Automated Digital Image Analysis of Ki67 Labeling Index in Breast Cancer.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProliferative activity (Ki-67 Labelling Index) in breast cancer increasingly serves as an additional tool in the decision for or against adjuvant chemotherapy in midrange hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Ki-67 Index has been previously shown to suffer from high inter-observer variability especially in midrange (G2) breast carcinomas. In this study we conducted a systematic approach using different Ki-67 assessments on large tissue sections in order to identify the method with the highest reliability and the lowest variability. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive breast pathologists retrospectively analyzed proliferative activity of 50 G2 invasive breast carcinomas using large tissue sections by assessing Ki-67 immunohistochemistry. Ki-67-assessments were done on light microscopy and on digital images following these methods: 1) assessing five regions, 2) assessing only darkly stained nuclei and 3) considering only condensed proliferative areas ('hotspots'). An individual review (the first described assessment from 2008) was also performed. The assessments on light microscopy were done by estimating. All measurements were performed three times. Inter-observer and intra-observer reliabilities were calculated using the approach proposed by Eliasziw et al. Clinical cutoffs (14% and 20%) were tested using Fleiss' Kappa.
resultsThere was a good intra-observer reliability in 5 of 7 methods (ICC: 0.76-0.89). The two highest inter-observer reliability was fair to moderate (ICC: 0.71 and 0.74) in 2 methods (region-analysis and individual-review) on light microscopy. Fleiss'-kappa-values (14% cut-off) were the highest (moderate) using the original recommendation on light-microscope (Kappa 0.58). Fleiss' kappa values (20% cut-off) were the highest (Kappa 0.48 each) in analyzing hotspots on light-microscopy and digital-analysis. No methodologies using digital-analysis were superior to the methods on light microscope.
conclusionOur results show that all methods on light-microscopy for Ki-67 assessment in large tissue sections resulted in a good intra-observer reliability. Region analysis and individual review (the original recommendation) on light-microscopy yielded the highest inter-observer reliability. These results show slight improvement to previously published data on poor-reproducibility and thus might be a practical-pragmatic way for routine assessment of Ki-67 Index in G2 breast carcinomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.