ArticleScientific reports2022
Conventional and digital Ki67 evaluation and their correlation with molecular prognosis and morphological parameters in luminal breast cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Association of Ki-67 with Oncotype DX Recurrence Score in Early-Stage ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2026Article
- External validation of precisebreast, a digital prognostic test for predicting breast cancer recurrence, in an early-stage cohort from the Netherlands.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Flow cytometric analysis for Ki67 assessment in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissue.BMC biology · 2024Article
- The Ki67 dilemma: investigating prognostic cut-offs and reproducibility for automated Ki67 scoring in breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Association Between Ki-67 Proliferative Index and Oncotype-Dx Recurrence Score in Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancers. A Systematic Review of the Literature.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2024Review
- The usefulness of CanAssist Breast over Ki67 in breast cancer recurrence risk assessment.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Attempt to Substitute the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence ScoreCancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital counting methods were developed to decrease the high intra- and inter-observer variability of immunohistochemical markers such as Ki67, with most presenting a good correlation coefficient (CC). Since Ki67 is one of the major contributors to Oncotype DX, it is conceivable that Ki67 expression and the recurrence score (RS) obtained by the multigene panel are positively correlated. We decided first to test to what extent conventional and digital Ki67 quantification methods correlate in daily practice and, second, to determine which of these methods correlates better with the prognostic capacity of the Oncotype DX test. Both Ki67 evaluations were performed in 89 core biopsies with a diagnosis of estrogen receptor (ER) positive HER2-negative breast cancer (BC). Cases were, thus, classified twice for surrogate subtype: first by conventional analysis and then by digital evaluation. The Oncotype RS was obtained in 55 cases that were subsequently correlated to Ki67 evaluation by both methods. Conventional and digital Ki67 evaluation showed good concordance and correlation (CC = 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.89)). The correlation of Oncotype DX risk groups and surrogate derived subtypes was slightly higher for the digital technique (r
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.