Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28154782›Full record

ArticleCancer biology & medicine2016

Ki-67 as a prognostic marker according to breast cancer molecular subtype.

Nahed A Soliman, Shaimaa M Yussif

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer biology & medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 162 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
162citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

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

162 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

102 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Nahed A SolimanDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helwan, Helwan 11795, Egypt.
Shaimaa M YussifDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Mansoura, Mansoura 35516, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveKi-67 plays an important function in cell division, but its exact role is still unknown. Moreover, few works regarding its overall function were published. The present study evaluated the clinical significance of Ki-67 index as a prognostic marker and predictor of recurrence in different molecular subtypes of breast cancer. The relationship of Ki-67 index with different clinicopathological factors was also analyzed.

methodsKi-67 index was measured in 107 cases of primary breast cancer from 2010-2012. These patients were evaluated for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2. Ki-67 was divided according to percentage levels: < 15% and > 15%. Follow-up ranged from 32 months up to 6 years.

resultsApproximately 44, 23, 15, and 25 cases were grouped as luminal A, luminal B, HER2 subtype, and triple-negative (TN), respectively. No luminal A patients showed Ki-67 level higher than 15%, and their recurrence was 20%. In luminal B group, Ki-67 level higher than 15% was observed in 69% of patients, and recurrence was 39%. In HER2 subtype, Ki-67 was higher than 15% in 34% of cases, and recurrence was 40%. In triple-negative cases, Ki-67 was higher than 15% in 60% of cases, and recurrence was detected in 32% of patients. Patients with Ki-67 less than 15% displayed better overall survival than those with Ki-67 higher than 15% (

conclusionsKi-67 may be considered as a valuable biomarker in breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

breast cancerKi-67molecular subtypesprognostic

Identifiers

PMID28154782
PMCPMC5250608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.