ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2016
Expression of cell cycle markers is predictive of the response to primary systemic therapy of locally advanced breast cancer.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of baseline tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and cell-cycle regulation markers on prognosis and mortality in patients with advanced breast cancer according to tumor characteristics and treatment type: an observational study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Observational
- Understanding cellular proliferation activity in breast cancer using multi-compartment model of transverse relaxation time mapping on 3T MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- MCM2 in human cancer: functions, mechanisms, and clinical significance.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Review
- Prognostic and Clinicopathological Correlations of Cell Cycle Marker Expressions before and after the Primary Systemic Therapy of Breast Cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2020Article
- Artificial intelligence in digital breast pathology: Techniques and applications.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Review
- Minichromosome maintenance protein 2 correlates with the malignant status and regulates proliferation and cell cycle in lung squamous cell carcinoma.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
- Spatial Attention-Based Deep Learning System for Breast Cancer Pathological Complete Response Prediction with Serial Histopathology Images in Multiple Stains.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted InterventionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to analyze to what extent expression of four cell cycle regulation markers-minichromosome maintenance protein (MCM2), Ki-67, cyclin A, and phosphohistone-H3 (PHH3)-predict response to primary systemic therapy in terms of pathological complete remission (pCR). In search of an accurate and reproducible scoring method, we compared computer-assisted (CA) and routine visual assessment (VA) of immunoreactivity. We included 57 patients with breast cancer in the study. The cell cycle markers were detected using immunohistochemistry on pre-therapy core biopsy samples. Parallel CA (validated by manual labeling) and standard VA were performed and compared for diagnostic agreement and predictive value for pCR. CA and VA results were dichotomized based on receiver operating characteristic analysis defined optimal cut-off values. "High" was defined by staining scores above the optimal cut-off, while "low" had staining scores below the optimal cut-off. The CA method resulted in significantly lower values for Ki-67 and MCM2 compared to VA (mean difference, -3.939 and -4.323). Diagnostic agreement was highest for cyclin A and PHH3 (-0.586 and -0.666, respectively). Regardless of the method (CA/VA) used, all tested markers were predictive of pCR. Optimal cut-off-based dichotomization improved diagnostic agreement between the CA and VA methods for every marker, in particular for MCM2 (κ = 1, p < 0.000). Cyclin A displayed excellent agreement (κ = 0.925; p < 0.000), while Ki-67 and PHH3 showed good agreement (κ = 0.789, p < 0.000 and κ = 0.794, p < 0.000, respectively). We found all cell cycle markers (Ki-67, MCM2, cyclin A, and PHH3) predictive of pCR. Diagnostic agreement between CA and VA was better at lower staining scores but improved after optimal cut-off-based dichotomization.
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.