Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26205655›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2015

Digital imaging in the immunohistochemical evaluation of the proliferation markers Ki67, MCM2 and Geminin, in early breast cancer, and their putative prognostic value.

Shalaka Joshi, Johnathan Watkins, Patrycja Gazinska, John P Brown, Cheryl E Gillett, Anita Grigoriadis, Sarah E Pinder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clinical Proteomics for Solid Organ Tissues.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. MCM2: An alternative to Ki-67 for measuring breast cancer cell proliferation.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2017
    Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shalaka JoshiDepartment of Research Oncology, King's College London, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. drjoshishalaka@gmail.com.
Johnathan WatkinsDepartment of Research Oncology, King's College London, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. johnathan.watkins@kcl.ac.uk.
Patrycja GazinskaDepartment of Research Oncology, King's College London, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. patrycja.gazinska@kcl.ac.uk.
John P BrownDepartment of Research Oncology, King's College London, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. john.brown@kcl.ac.uk.
Cheryl E GillettDepartment of Research Oncology, King's College London, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. cheryl.gillett@kcl.ac.uk.
Anita GrigoriadisDepartment of Research Oncology, King's College London, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. anita.grigoriadis@kcl.ac.uk.
Sarah E PinderDepartment of Research Oncology, King's College London, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, Division of Cancer Studies, Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. sarah.pinder@kcl.ac.uk.
Guy's Hospital · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunohistochemical assessment of proliferation may provide additional prognostic information in early breast cancer. However, due to a lack of methodological standards proliferation markers are still not routinely used for determining therapy. Even for Ki67, one of the most widely-studied markers, disagreements over the optimal cutoff exist. Improvements in digital microscopy may provide new avenues to standardise and make data more reproducible.

methodsWe studied the immunohistochemical expression of three markers of proliferation: Ki67, Mini-Chromosome Maintenance protein 2 and Geminin, by conventional light microscope and digital imaging on triplicate TMAs from 309 consecutive cases of primary breast cancers. Differences between the average and the maximum percentage reactivity in tumour cell nuclei from the three TMA cores were investigated to assess the validity of the approach. Time-dependent Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were utilized to obtain optimal expression level cut-offs, which were then correlated with clinico-pathological features and survival.

resultsHigh concordance between conventional and digital scores was observed for all 3 markers (Ki67: rs = 0.87, P < 0.001; MCM2: rs = 0.94, P < 0.001; and Geminin: rs = 0.86, P < 0.001; Spearman's rank). There was no significant difference according to the number of TMA cores included for either Ki67 or MCM2; analysis of two or three cores produced comparable results. Higher levels of all three proliferation markers were significantly associated with higher grade (P < 0.001) and ER-negativity (P < 0.001). Optimal prognostic cut-offs for percentage expression in the tumour were 8 %, 12 and 2.33 % for Ki67, MCM2 and Geminin respectively. All 3 proliferation marker cutoffs were predictive of 15-year breast cancer-specific survival in univariable Cox regression analyses. In multivariable analysis only lymph node status (HR = 3.9, 95 % CI = 1.79-8.5, P = 0.0006) and histological grade (HR = 1.84, 95 % CI = 1-3.38, P = 0.05) remained significantly prognostic.

conclusionsHere we show that. MCM2 is a more sensitive marker of proliferation than Ki67 and should be examined in future studies, especially in the lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive subgroup. Further, digital microscopy can be used effectively as a high-throughput method to evaluate immunohistochemical expression.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGemininHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedKi-67 AntigenMiddle AgedMinichromosome Maintenance Complex Component 2PrognosisROC CurveBiomarkers, TumorGemininGMNN protein, humanKi-67 AntigenMCM2 protein, humanMinichromosome Maintenance Complex Component 2

Identifiers

PMID26205655
PMCPMC4513675
OpenAlexW1511299470

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.