ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
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.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular and thromboembolic outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors in gastroesophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2025Article
- Development of a novel prognostic model for mantle cell lymphoma based on quantitative detection of CD3 by quantitative dot blot.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Recommendations from the National Health Commission of China (NHCC) and the International Ki67 Working Group (IKWG) were issued to guide immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based Ki67 scoring for breast cancer patients in daily clinical practice. They were evaluated in this multi-institutional study alongside the results from the Quantitative Dot Blot (QDB) method. Methods: Three alternative adjacent sections from 40 primary ER+ breast cancer resection blocks were randomly assigned a number from 1 to 120 for Ki67 staining and reviewed by 21 pathologists, while the other three alternative sections were sent for QDB analysis of Ki67 protein levels. Ki67 scores were grouped by 5/30% (IKWG), 10/30% (NHCC) and 20/30% (NHCC appendix 9, NHCCa9), respectively while QDB results were grouped by C Results: The overall Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was 0.785 for IHC evaluations from 21 pathologists, with Fleiss Kappa values of 0.555, 0.628, and 0.480 when Ki67 scores were grouped by guidance from IKWG, NHCC, and NHCCa9, respectively. In comparison, the ICC and Fleiss kappa values for the QDB analysis were 0.939 and 0.831, respectively. When IHC and QDB results were cross-referenced, more specimens were grouped as high-risk by QDB than IHC, and NHCCa9 led to the highest percentage of disagreement between the two methods. Conclusion: The IKWG recommendation was harder to achieve categorized agreement among pathologists than the NHCC recommendation, yet it led to the best agreement with the QDB to define the low-risk group. The QDB method offers significantly improved consistency compared to the current IHC-based Ki67 assessment.
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.