ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2019
Digital quantification of KI-67 in breast cancer.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Role of Proteins in Oncology: Advances in Cancer Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Targeted Therapy-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Early Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: Integrating Histopathology with Artificial Intelligence.Cancers · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Ki-67, 21-Gene Recurrence Score, Endocrine Resistance, and Survival in Patients With Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Conventional and digital Ki67 evaluation and their correlation with molecular prognosis and morphological parameters in luminal breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of Ki-67 expression and repeatability in breast cancer.Diagnostic pathology · 2022Article
- Discovery of novel KRAS‒PDEActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2022Article
- Independent Clinical Validation of the Automated Ki67 Scoring Guideline from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group.Biomolecules · 2021Article
- Ki-67 Proliferation Index Assessment in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors by Digital Image Analysis With Stringent Case and Hotspot Level Concordance Requirements.American journal of clinical pathology · 2021Article
- Effects of BAP1, Ki-67 index, and Id-1 in patients with clear cell renal carcinoma and their correlation with clinical features and prognosis.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Effect of Ect2 Expression on the Growth of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells with Paclitaxel Intervention.OncoTargets and therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
30465110What 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.