Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30465110›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2019

Digital quantification of KI-67 in breast cancer.

María Del Rosario Taco Sanchez, Teresa Soler-Monsó, Anna Petit, Juan Azcarate, Alba Lasheras, Carmen Artal, Miguel Gil, Catalina Falo, María Jesús Pla, Xavier Matias-Guiu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Discovery of novel KRAS‒PDEActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

María Del Rosario Taco SanchezDepartment of Pathology, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain. rtaco@bellvitgehospital.cat.
Teresa Soler-MonsóDepartment of Pathology, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain.
Anna PetitDepartment of Pathology, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain.
Juan AzcarateDepartment of Pathology, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain.
Alba LasherasDepartment of Pathology, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain.
Carmen ArtalDepartment of Pathology, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain.
Miguel GilCatalan Breast Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, ICO L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Catalina FaloCatalan Breast Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, ICO L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
María Jesús PlaDepartment of Gynecology, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, IRBLLEIDA, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain.
Xavier Matias-GuiuBellvitge University Hospital and Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, IDIBELL, IRBLLEIDA, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ki-67 proliferative index (Ki-67) is a predictive and prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC). However, some international committees do not recommend its use in routine practice due to insufficient clinical evidence and lack of standardisation and assessment method reproducibility. Scoring of Ki-67 by digital pathology may contribute to overcome these drawbacks. We evaluated 136 core biopsies of BC patients and calculated the correlation of Ki-67 scored by two breast pathologists with two methods, eyeballing visual assessment (EB) on the microscope and digital image analysis (DI), both assessed from hot spot areas (HS) and the average between hot and cold spot areas (AVE). Good and higher correlation between pathologists was observed for HS using DI in comparison to EB (0.861 vs. 0.828). Correlation in HS with both methods was very similar in homogeneous tumours (0.869 vs. 0.866). Lower correlation was found in heterogeneous tumours if EB was used instead of DI (0.691 vs. 0.838). Good agreement with DI in AVE areas was observed in both homogenous and heterogeneous tumours (0.898 and 0.887). Concordance of tumour molecular profiles based on Ki-67 was better using DI in comparison to EB (Kappa index, 0.589 vs. 0675). Whereas EB and DI were alike in homogeneous tumour, DI improved agreement in heterogeneous tumours, particularly in AVE areas. Subgroup analysis for tumour grades also showed improvement of correlation by DI in AVE areas in all G1/G2/G3 groups. Digital pathology using AVE method can be useful for Ki-67 scoring in daily practice, especially in heterogeneous and G2 tumours, by a substantial improvement of agreement between observers and results accuracy.

Indexed as

AdultBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryKi-67 AntigenMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingObserver VariationPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesKi-67 AntigenBreast cancerDigital analysisImmunohistochemistryKi-67PrognosisReproducibility

Identifiers

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.