173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30465110)
1. Digital quantification of KI-67 in breast cancer.
Del Rosario Taco Sanchez M; Soler-Monsó T; Petit A; Azcarate J; Lasheras A; Artal C; Gil M; Falo C; Pla MJ; Matias-Guiu X
Virchows Arch; 2019 Feb; 474(2):169-176. PubMed ID: 30465110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Standardization for Ki-67 assessment in moderately differentiated breast cancer. A retrospective analysis of the SAKK 28/12 study.
Varga Z; Cassoly E; Li Q; Oehlschlegel C; Tapia C; Lehr HA; Klingbiel D; Thürlimann B; Ruhstaller T
PLoS One; 2015; 10(4):e0123435. PubMed ID: 25885288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Comparison of Visual Assessment and Automated Digital Image Analysis of Ki67 Labeling Index in Breast Cancer.
Zhong F; Bi R; Yu B; Yang F; Yang W; Shui R
PLoS One; 2016; 11(2):e0150505. PubMed ID: 26928407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Ki 67 assessment in breast cancer in an Egyptian population: a comparative study between manual assessment on optical microscopy and digital quantitative assessment.
Ayad E; Soliman A; Anis SE; Salem AB; Hu P; Dong Y
Diagn Pathol; 2018 Aug; 13(1):63. PubMed ID: 30153851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of immunohistochemistry with PCR for assessment of ER, PR, and Ki-67 and prediction of pathological complete response in breast cancer.
Sinn HP; Schneeweiss A; Keller M; Schlombs K; Laible M; Seitz J; Lakis S; Veltrup E; Altevogt P; Eidt S; Wirtz RM; Marmé F
BMC Cancer; 2017 Feb; 17(1):124. PubMed ID: 28193205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Automated assessment of Ki-67 in breast cancer: the utility of digital image analysis using virtual triple staining and whole slide imaging.
Hida AI; Omanovic D; Pedersen L; Oshiro Y; Ogura T; Nomura T; Kurebayashi J; Kanomata N; Moriya T
Histopathology; 2020 Sep; 77(3):471-480. PubMed ID: 32578891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Performance of Ki-67 Labeling Index in Different Specimen Categories of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast Using 2 Scoring Methods.
Al Nemer A
Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol; 2017 Feb; 25(2):86-90. PubMed ID: 26509909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Practical issues concerning the implementation of Ki-67 proliferative index measurement in breast cancer reporting.
Harvey J; Thomas C; Wood B; Hardie M; Dessauvagie B; Combrinck M; Frost FA; Sterrett G
Pathology; 2015 Jan; 47(1):13-20. PubMed ID: 25474507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Visual assessment of Ki67 using a 5-grade scale (Eye-5) is easy and practical to classify breast cancer subtypes with high reproducibility.
Hida AI; Bando K; Sugita A; Maeda T; Ueda N; Matsukage S; Nakanishi M; Kito K; Miyazaki T; Ohtsuki Y; Oshiro Y; Inoue H; Kawaguchi H; Yamashita N; Aogi K; Moriya T
J Clin Pathol; 2015 May; 68(5):356-61. PubMed ID: 25673730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Correlation of manual semi-quantitative and automated quantitative Ki-67 proliferative index with OncotypeDXTM recurrence score in invasive breast carcinoma.
Finkelman BS; Meindl A; LaBoy C; Griffin BB; Narayan SP; Brancamp R; Siziopikou KP; Pincus JL; Blanco LZ
Breast Dis; 2022; 41(1):55-65. PubMed ID: 34397396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists.
Varga Z; Diebold J; Dommann-Scherrer C; Frick H; Kaup D; Noske A; Obermann E; Ohlschlegel C; Padberg B; Rakozy C; Sancho Oliver S; Schobinger-Clement S; Schreiber-Facklam H; Singer G; Tapia C; Wagner U; Mastropasqua MG; Viale G; Lehr HA
PLoS One; 2012; 7(5):e37379. PubMed ID: 22662150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Subspecialized breast pathologists have suboptimal interobserver agreement in Ki-67 evaluation using 20% as the cutoff.
Ai D; Turashvili G; Gjeorgjievski SG; Wang Q; Ewaz AM; Gao Y; Nguyen T; Zhang C; Li X
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2024 Apr; 204(2):415-422. PubMed ID: 38157098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of Ki-67 labeling index measurements using digital image analysis and scoring by pathologists.
Morioka T; Niikura N; Kumaki N; Masuda S; Iwamoto T; Yokoyama K; Ogiya R; Oshitanai R; Terao M; Tsuda B; Okamura T; Saito Y; Suzuki Y; Tokuda Y
Breast Cancer; 2018 Nov; 25(6):768-777. PubMed ID: 29959636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters.
Buck A; Schirrmeister H; Kühn T; Shen C; Kalker T; Kotzerke J; Dankerl A; Glatting G; Reske S; Mattfeldt T
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2002 Oct; 29(10):1317-23. PubMed ID: 12271413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Laboratory validation studies in Ki-67 digital image analysis of breast carcinoma: a pathway to routine quality assurance.
Wang M; McLaren S; Jeyathevan R; Allanson BM; Ireland A; Kang A; Meehan K; Thomas C; Robinson C; Combrinck M; Harvey J; Sterrett G; Dessauvagie B
Pathology; 2019 Apr; 51(3):246-252. PubMed ID: 30850279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An interobserver reproducibility analysis of Ki67 visual assessment in breast cancer.
Shui R; Yu B; Bi R; Yang F; Yang W
PLoS One; 2015; 10(5):e0125131. PubMed ID: 25932921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An interobserver reproducibility analysis of size-set semiautomatic counting for Ki67 assessment in breast cancer.
Wang YX; Wang YY; Yang CG; Bu H; Yang WT; Wang L; Xu WM; Zhao XL; Zhao WX; Li L; Song SL; Yang JL
Breast; 2020 Feb; 49():225-232. PubMed ID: 31911370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of 5 Ki-67 antibodies regarding reproducibility and capacity to predict prognosis in breast cancer: does the antibody matter?
Ács B; Kulka J; Kovács KA; Teleki I; Tőkés AM; Meczker Á; Győrffy B; Madaras L; Krenács T; Szász AM
Hum Pathol; 2017 Jul; 65():31-40. PubMed ID: 28188752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An intra- and interobserver reproducibility analysis of the Ki-67 proliferation marker assessment on core biopsies of breast cancer patients and its potential clinical implications.
Vörös A; Csörgő E; Nyári T; Cserni G
Pathobiology; 2013; 80(3):111-8. PubMed ID: 23258384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Objective quantification of the Ki67 proliferative index in neuroendocrine tumors of the gastroenteropancreatic system: a comparison of digital image analysis with manual methods.
Tang LH; Gonen M; Hedvat C; Modlin IM; Klimstra DS
Am J Surg Pathol; 2012 Dec; 36(12):1761-70. PubMed ID: 23026928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
