Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25885288›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Standardization for Ki-67 assessment in moderately differentiated breast cancer. A retrospective analysis of the SAKK 28/12 study.

Zsuzsanna Varga, Estelle Cassoly, Qiyu Li, Christian Oehlschlegel, Coya Tapia, Hans Anton Lehr, Dirk Klingbiel, Beat Thürlimann, Thomas Ruhstaller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Digital counting of tissue cells for molecular analysis: the QuANTUM pipeline.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Zsuzsanna VargaInstitute of Surgical Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Estelle CassolySwiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland.
Qiyu LiSwiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland.
Christian OehlschlegelInstitute of Pathology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Coya TapiaInstitute of Pathology, University Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Hans Anton LehrPathology Institute Friedrichshafen, Friedrichshafen, Germany.
Dirk KlingbielSwiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland.
Beat ThürlimannSwiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Bern, Switzerland; Breast Center, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Thomas RuhstallerBreast Center, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Kantonsspital St. Gallen · CHSwiss Group For Clinical Cancer Research · CHUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cell ProliferationMitotic IndexAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryKi-67 AntigenMiddle AgedObserver VariationReference StandardsBiomarkers, TumorKi-67 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID25885288
PMCPMC4401515
OpenAlexW2073519512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.