↓ Skip to main content

Digital imaging in the immunohistochemical evaluation of the proliferation markers Ki67, MCM2 and Geminin, in early breast cancer, and their putative prognostic value

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Digital imaging in the immunohistochemical evaluation of the proliferation markers Ki67, MCM2 and Geminin, in early breast cancer, and their putative prognostic value
Published in
BMC Cancer, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1531-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shalaka Joshi, Johnathan Watkins, Patrycja Gazinska, John P. Brown, Cheryl E. Gillett, Anita Grigoriadis, Sarah E. Pinder

Abstract

Immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation may provide additional prognostic information in early breast cancer. However, due to a lack of methodological standards proliferation markers are still not routinely used for determining therapy. Even for Ki67, one of the most widely-studied markers, disagreements over the optimal cutoff exist. Improvements in digital microscopy may provide new avenues to standardise and make data more reproducible. We studied the immunohistochemical expression of three markers of proliferation: Ki67, Mini-Chromosome Maintenance protein 2 and Geminin, by conventional light microscope and digital imaging on triplicate TMAs from 309 consecutive cases of primary breast cancers. Differences between the average and the maximum percentage reactivity in tumour cell nuclei from the three TMA cores were investigated to assess the validity of the approach. Time-dependent Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were utilized to obtain optimal expression level cut-offs, which were then correlated with clinico-pathological features and survival. High concordance between conventional and digital scores was observed for all 3 markers (Ki67: rs = 0.87, P < 0.001; MCM2: rs = 0.94, P < 0.001; and Geminin: rs = 0.86, P < 0.001; Spearman's rank). There was no significant difference according to the number of TMA cores included for either Ki67 or MCM2; analysis of two or three cores produced comparable results. Higher levels of all three proliferation markers were significantly associated with higher grade (P < 0.001) and ER-negativity (P < 0.001). Optimal prognostic cut-offs for percentage expression in the tumour were 8 %, 12 and 2.33 % for Ki67, MCM2 and Geminin respectively. All 3 proliferation marker cutoffs were predictive of 15-year breast cancer-specific survival in univariable Cox regression analyses. In multivariable analysis only lymph node status (HR = 3.9, 95 % CI = 1.79-8.5, P = 0.0006) and histological grade (HR = 1.84, 95 % CI = 1-3.38, P = 0.05) remained significantly prognostic. Here we show that. MCM2 is a more sensitive marker of proliferation than Ki67 and should be examined in future studies, especially in the lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive subgroup. Further, digital microscopy can be used effectively as a high-throughput method to evaluate immunohistochemical expression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,766,929
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,962
of 8,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,726
of 263,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#101
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,300 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.