ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2018
Reproducibility and Prognostic Potential of Ki-67 Proliferation Index when Comparing Digital-Image Analysis with Standard Semi-Quantitative Evaluation in Breast Cancer.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and characterization of a novel B7-H3 rabbit monoclonal antibody for glioma diagnosis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Intratumoral heterogeneity of Ki67 proliferation index outperforms conventional immunohistochemistry prognostic factors in estrogen receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025Article
- DeepHeme: A generalizable, bone marrow classifier with hematopathologist-level performance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- The Evolution of Ki-67 and Breast Carcinoma: Past Observations, Present Directions, and Future Considerations.Cancers · 2023Review
- Systematically higher Ki67 scores on core biopsy samples compared to corresponding resection specimen in breast cancer: a multi-operator and multi-institutional study.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 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
- The tongue features associated with chronic kidney disease.Medicine · 2021Observational
- Sequential immunohistochemistry and virtual image reconstruction using a single slide for quantitative KI67 measurement in breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- Ki67 reproducibility using digital image analysis: an inter-platform and inter-operator study.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2019Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, the reproducibility of Ki-67 proliferation index (KIPI) was investigated by comparing the semi-quantitative (SQ) results of three assessors with those of digital image-analysis (DIA) methods. The prognostic significance of the two approaches was also correlated with clinical outcome. Tissue microarrays of duplicate 2 mm cores were constructed from representative areas of formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tumor blocks of 347 breast cancer patients. SQ evaluation of Ki-67 (MIB1 clone) immunostained slides was performed independently by three pathologists. DIA was completed using a fully automated histological pattern and cell recognition module for KIPI detection (DIA-1) and an adjustable module (DIA-2) with the possibility of manual corrections. To compare SQ and DIA evaluations intra-class correlation (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were determined. The three SQ evaluations demonstrated a remarkable ICC (0.853). Significant difference and poor concordance occurred between SQ-1 and SQ-2 as well as between SQ-1 and SQ-3 (p ≤ 0.001, CCC ≤ 0.827 for both comparisons). Thus, the reference KIPI value (SQ-RV) was generated from the mean values of SQ-2 and SQ-3. SQ-RV and DIA-2 results showed substantial concordance (CCC = 0.963, at p = 0.754), while SQ-RV and DIA-1 values differed (p ≤ 0.001) at only moderate concordance (CCC = 0.906). In multivariate analysis, lymph node status and SQ-2 assessment were significantly associated with clinical outcome (p ≤ 0.012 for both comparisons). Our results confirm that KIPI is a significant prognostic marker in breast cancer, which can be can be reliably reproduced by using an adjustable DIA-2 image analysis module.
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.