首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >A comparison of Ki-67 counting methods in luminal Breast Cancer: The Average Method vs. the Hot Spot Method
【2h】

A comparison of Ki-67 counting methods in luminal Breast Cancer: The Average Method vs. the Hot Spot Method

机译:腔内乳腺癌中Ki-67计数方法的比较:平均方法与热点方法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In spite of the usefulness of the Ki-67 labeling index (LI) as a prognostic and predictive marker in breast cancer, its clinical application remains limited due to variability in its measurement and the absence of a standard method of interpretation. This study was designed to compare the two methods of assessing Ki-67 LI: the average method vs. the hot spot method and thus to determine which method is more appropriate in predicting prognosis of luminal/HER2-negative breast cancers. Ki-67 LIs were calculated by direct counting of three representative areas of 493 luminal/HER2-negative breast cancers using the two methods. We calculated the differences in the Ki-67 LIs (ΔKi-67) between the two methods and the ratio of the Ki-67 LIs (H/A ratio) of the two methods. In addition, we compared the performance of the Ki-67 LIs obtained by the two methods as prognostic markers. ΔKi-67 ranged from 0.01% to 33.3% and the H/A ratio ranged from 1.0 to 2.6. Based on the receiver operating characteristic curve method, the predictive powers of the KI-67 LI measured by the two methods were similar (Area under curve: hot spot method, 0.711; average method, 0.700). In multivariate analysis, high Ki-67 LI based on either method was an independent poor prognostic factor, along with high T stage and node metastasis. However, in repeated counts, the hot spot method did not consistently classify tumors into high vs. low Ki-67 LI groups. In conclusion, both the average and hot spot method of evaluating Ki-67 LI have good predictive performances for tumor recurrence in luminal/HER2-negative breast cancers. However, we recommend using the average method for the present because of its greater reproducibility.
机译:尽管Ki-67标记指数(LI)在乳腺癌中作为预后和预测指标有用,但由于其测量的可变性和缺乏标准的解释方法,其临床应用仍然受到限制。本研究旨在比较评估Ki-67 LI的两种方法:平均法与热点法,从而确定哪种方法更适合预测管腔/ HER2阴性乳腺癌的预后。 Ki-67 LIs是通过使用两种方法直接计数493个管腔/ HER2阴性乳腺癌的三个代表性区域来计算的。我们计算了两种方法之间的Ki-67 LIs(ΔKi-67)和两种方法的Ki-67 LIs之比(H / A比)之差。此外,我们比较了通过两种方法获得的Ki-67 LI作为预后指标的性能。 ΔKi-67的范围为0.01%至33.3%,H / A比范围为1.0至2.6。根据接收器工作特性曲线法,两种方法测得的KI-67 LI的预测能力相似(曲线下面积:热点法0.711;平均值法0.700)。在多变量分析中,基于这两种方法的高Ki-67 LI都是独立的不良预后因素,同时伴有高T期和淋巴结转移。然而,在重复计数中,热点方法不能将肿瘤始终分为高Ki-67 LI组和低Ki-67 LI组。总之,评估Ki-67 LI的平均方法和热点方法在管腔/ HER2阴性乳腺癌中均具有良好的肿瘤复发预测性能。但是,由于其重现性较高,我们建议使用目前的平均方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号