ArticleNPJ breast cancer2021
Systematic evaluation of scoring methods for Ki67 as a surrogate for 21-gene recurrence score.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2021. 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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of Ki-67 labeling index in pediatric brain tumor immunohistochemistry images.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2026Article
- PARP inhibitor-induced anti-tumour chemokine response is suppressed by dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) in ovarian cancer.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Comparing non-machine learning vs. machine learning methods for Ki67 scoring in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reproducibility of Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen Receptors, Progesterone Receptors, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 (HER2) and Ki-67 in Vietnam.British journal of biomedical science · 2025Article
- Interobserver Variability in Ki-67 Index Assessment of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Comparative Evaluation of Three Counting Methods.Iranian journal of pathology · 2025Article
- The Ki67 dilemma: investigating prognostic cut-offs and reproducibility for automated Ki67 scoring in breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Prediction of Oncotype DX Recurrence Score Based on Systematic Evaluation of Ki-67 Scores in Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer.Journal of breast cancer · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the international Ki67 working group cut point recommendations for early breast cancer: comparison with 21-gene assay results in a large integrated health care system.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Combined utility of Ki-67 index and tumor grade to stratify patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent upfront surgery.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Prediction of Oncotype DX Recurrence Score Using Clinicopathological Variables in Estrogen Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer.Journal of breast cancer · 2023Article
- Conventional and digital Ki67 evaluation and their correlation with molecular prognosis and morphological parameters in luminal breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Independent Clinical Validation of the Automated Ki67 Scoring Guideline from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group.Biomolecules · 2021Article
- Shifting Gears in Precision Oncology-Challenges and Opportunities of Integrative Data Analysis.Biomolecules · 2021Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Although Ki67 labeling index is a potential predictive marker for chemotherapy benefit, its clinical utility has been limited by the lack of a standard scoring method resulting in poor interobserver reproducibility. Especially, there is no consensus on the use of average versus hotspot score for reporting. In order to determine the best method for Ki67 scoring and validate manual scoring method proposed by the International Ki67 Working Group (IKWG), we systematically compared average versus hotspot score in 240 cases with a public domain image analysis program QuPath. We used OncotypeDx Recurrence Score (RS) as a benchmark to compare the potential clinical utility of each scoring methods. Both average and hotspot scores showed statistically significant but only modest correlation with OncotypeDx RS. Only hotspot score could meaningfully distinguish RS low-risk versus high-risk patients. However, hotspot score was less reproducible limiting its clinical utility. In summary, our data demonstrate that utility of the Ki67 labeling index is influenced by the choice of scoring method.
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.