ArticleDiagnostic pathology2020
Spotlight on Ki67 as a prognostic marker in early breast cancer: all that glitters may not be gold.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Histological Aspects and Quantitative Assessment of Ki67 as Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer Patients: Result from a Single-Center, Cross Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kang and colleagues evaluated on a case series of 1848 breast cancer (BC) patients operated for a first primary ER positive HER2 negative BC if Ki67 expression is a significant prognostic factor only when PgR expression is low. The authors concluded that Ki67 with 10% cut off value is a prognostic factor only under low PgR expression level in early BC. We would like to underline, that as already stated in our previous papers, we believe that proliferation is important to define the decision-making of adjuvant therapies in early BC. The issue on Ki67 detection is the poor reproducibility due to different antibody clones, platforms and scoring methods. Not less important is that different Ki67 cut off values have been used by San Gallen guidelines and changed overtime. Then, despite the interesting results, we believe it would be better to use Ki67 biomarker in according to the standard Ki67 cut off according to San Gallen guidelines. Nowadays, standardization and optimization of Ki67 is still an urgent need.
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.