Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28401450›Full record

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.

Balázs Ács, Lilla Madaras, Kristóf Attila Kovács, Tamás Micsik, Anna-Mária Tőkés, Balázs Győrffy, Janina Kulka, Attila Marcell Szász

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Ki67 reproducibility using digital image analysis: an inter-platform and inter-operator study.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2019
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Balázs Ács2nd Department of Pathology, Semmelweis University, 93 Üllői út, Budapest, 1091, Hungary.
Lilla Madaras2nd Department of Pathology, Semmelweis University, 93 Üllői út, Budapest, 1091, Hungary.
Kristóf Attila Kovács2nd Department of Pathology, Semmelweis University, 93 Üllői út, Budapest, 1091, Hungary.
Tamás Micsik1st Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Semmelweis University, 26 Üllői út, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Anna-Mária TőkésMTA-SE Tumor Progression Research Group, 2nd Department of Pathology, Semmelweis University, 93 Üllői út, Budapest, 1091, Hungary.
Balázs GyőrffyMTA-TTK Lendület Cancer Biomarker Research Group, 2 Magyar tudósok körútja, Budapest, 1117, Hungary.
Janina Kulka2nd Department of Pathology, Semmelweis University, 93 Üllői út, Budapest, 1091, Hungary.
Attila Marcell Szász2nd Department of Pathology, Semmelweis University, 93 Üllői út, Budapest, 1091, Hungary. cac@korb2.sote.hu.
Semmelweis University · HUHUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences · HU

Funding

Hungarian Talent Program, National Young Talent Award 2016 NTP-NFTÖ-16-0496
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCell ProliferationFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedKi-67 AntigenMiddle AgedMolecular ImagingNeoplasm InvasivenessPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkers, TumorKi-67 AntigenBreast cancerConcordance correlationDigital image analysisIntra-class correlationKi-67 proliferation indexPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID28401450
OpenAlexW2605488055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.