ArticleCureus2026
Ki-67 Quantification in Breast Cancer: A Comparison of Hotspot and Global Scoring Methods Using a Standardized Android Application.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Ki-67 is an important proliferative biomarker in breast carcinoma; however, methodological variability in its assessment limits reproducibility and clinical applicability. The International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) has proposed a standardized global scoring method with a freely available Android application to address this issue. This study aimed to compare hotspot and weighted-global Ki-67 scoring methods using the IKWG Android application in invasive breast carcinoma, assess their correlation and categorization, and evaluate their diagnostic performance in predicting histological grade, with potential relevance to clinical decision-making and treatment stratification. Methodology A hospital-based, cross-sectional study was conducted on 53 cases of invasive breast carcinoma. Ki-67 immunohistochemical slides were digitally scanned and scored using both hotspot and weighted-global methods via the IKWG Android application. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman's correlation, and receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results The hotspot method produced a markedly elevated mean Ki-67 index (57.1 ± 22.6%) in contrast to the weighted-global method (43.1 ± 24.0%; p = 0.004). Using IKWG cutoffs, 44 (83.0%) tumors were classified as high proliferative by hotspot versus 36 (67.9%) by weighted-global scoring. Both methods showed a very strong correlation (Spearman's r = 0.954, p < 0.001). The weighted-global Ki-67 demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance for predicting high-grade tumors (area under the curve = 0.991), with 100% specificity and 84.9% overall accuracy. Grade 2 tumors predominated (26 (49.1%)), followed by Grade 3 (18 (34.0%)) and Grade 1 (9 (17.0%)). Conclusions Hotspot scoring systematically overestimates tumor proliferation. The weighted-global method, incorporating intratumoral heterogeneity, provides a more balanced and biologically representative Ki-67 estimate. Standardization via the IKWG Android application improves reproducibility and supports reliable clinical decision-making.
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.