ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Validation of absolutely quantitated Ki67 and cyclinD1 protein levels for prognosis of Luminal-like breast cancer patients.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a novel prognostic model for mantle cell lymphoma based on quantitative detection of CD3 by quantitative dot blot.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Immunohistochemical Expression of Cyclin D1 and p16 in Invasive Breast Carcinoma and Its Association with Clinicopathological Parameters.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Multi-institutional evaluation comparing guidance from International Ki67 Working Group vs National Health Commission of China on immunohistochemistry-based Ki67 assessment alongside the Quantitative Dot Blot method.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- ELISA-like QDB method to meet the emerging need of Her2 assessment for breast cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Validation of absolutely quantitated Ki67 and cyclinD1 protein levels for prognosis of Luminal-like breast cancer patients.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
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
Abstract
aimsTo translate a clinical research finding into daily clinical practice requires well-controlled clinical trials. We have demonstrated the usage of absolute quantitation of Ki67 and cyclinD1 protein levels to improve prognosis of Luminal-like patients based on overall survival (OS) analysis of a cohort of 155 breast cancer specimens (cohort 1). However, this finding is considered the D level of evidence (LOE) to require subsequent validation before it may be used in daily clinical practice. To set the stage for future clinical trials, our findings were validated through OS analysis of an independent cohort (cohort 2) of 173 Luminal-like patients.
methodsBoth Ki67 and cyclinD1 levels were measured absolutely and quantitatively using the Quantitative Dot Blot (QDB) method in cohort 2. The proposed cutoffs for both biomarkers from cohort 1 were re-evaluated in cohort 2 and in the merged cohort of 1 and 2, respectively, through univariate, multivariate and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
resultsThe proposed cutoffs of 2.31 nmol/g for Ki67 and 0.44 μmol/g for cyclinD1 were validated as effective cutoffs in cohort 2 and the merged cohort through OS analysis. The combined use of both biomarkers allowed us to identify patients with both biomarker levels below the cutoffs (59.3%) with10-year survival probability (SP) of 89%, in comparison to those above the cutoffs (8.3%) with 8 year SP of 28% through OS analysis in the merged cohort.
conclusionsThis study validated our findings that absolute quantitation of Ki67 and cyclinD1 allows effective subtyping of luminal-like patients. It sets the stage for prospective or prospective-retrospective clinical studies.
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.