ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Identification and Quantification of Radiotherapy-related Protein Expression in Cancer Tissues Using the Qupath Software and Prediction of Treatment Response.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital pathology in tau research: A comparison of QuPath and HALO.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2025Article
- Toward Inclusive Oncology: Challenges in the Therapy of Pediatric Non-B Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Prediction of Treatment Response Based on Nutritional Status and Tumor Immunity in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Treated With Chemoradiotherapy.Cancer 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimAutomated measurement of immunostained samples can enable more convenient and objective prediction of treatment outcome from radiotherapy. We aimed to validate the performance of the QuPath image analysis software in immune cell markers detection by comparing QuPath cell counting results with those of physician manual cell counting. PATIENTS AND
methodsCD8- and FoxP3-stained cervical, CD8-stained oropharyngeal, and Ku70-stained prostate cancer tumor sections were analyzed in 104 cervical, 92 oropharyngeal, and 58 prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy at our Institution.
resultsQuPath and manual counts were highly correlated. When divided into two groups using ROC curves, the agreement between QuPath and manual counts was 89.4% for CD8 and 88.5% for FoxP3 in cervical cancer, 87.0% for CD8 in oropharyngeal cancer and 80.7% for Ku70 in prostate cancer. In cervical cancer, the high CD8 group based on QuPath counts had a better prognosis and the low CD8 group had a significantly worse prognosis [p=0.0003; 5-year overall survival (OS), 65.9% vs. 34.7%]. QuPath counts were more predictive than manual counts. Similar results were observed for FoxP3 in cervical cancer (p=0.002; 5-year OS, 62.1% vs. 33.6%) and CD8 in oropharyngeal cancer (p=0.013; 5-year OS, 80.2% vs. 47.2%). In prostate cancer, high Ku70 group had worse and low group significantly better outcome [p=0.007; 10-year progression-free survival (PFS), 56.0% vs. 93.8%].
conclusionQuPath showed a strong correlation with manual counting, confirming its utility and accuracy and potential applicability in clinical practice.
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.