Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 16, 2026.

Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12 155 patients

E de Azambuja, F Cardoso, G de Castro and 7 more

British Journal of Cancer · 2007 · Meta-analysis

doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603756

Abstract

The Ki-67 antigen is used to evaluate the proliferative activity of breast cancer (BC); however, Ki-67's role as a prognostic marker in BC is still undefined. In order to better define the prognostic value of Ki-67/MIB-1, we performed a meta-analysis of studies that evaluated the impact of Ki-67/MIB-1 on disease-free survival (DFS) and/or on overall survival (OS) in early BC. Sixty-eight studies were identified and 46 studies including 12 155 patients were evaluable for our meta-analysis; 38 studies were evaluable for the aggregation of results for DFS, and 35 studies for OS. Patients were considered to present positive tumours for the expression of Ki-67/MIB-1 according to the cut-off points defined by the authors. Ki-67/MIB-1 positivity is associated with higher probability of relapse in all patients (HR=1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.74-2.14); P<0.001), in node-negative patients (HR=2.31 (95% CI: 1.83-2.92); P<0.001) and in node-positive patients (HR=1.59 (95% CI: 1.35-1.87); P<0.001). Furthermore, Ki-67/MIB-1 positivity is associated with worse survival in all patients (HR=1.95 (95% CI: 1.70-2.24; P<0.001)), node-negative patients (HR=2.54 (95% CI: 1.65-3.91); P<0.001) and node-positive patients (HR=2.33 (95% CI: 1.83-2.95); P<0.001). Our meta-analysis suggests that Ki-67/MIB-1 positivity confers a higher risk of relapse and a worse survival in patients with early BC.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 17, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

The crude incidence of breast cancer (BC) in Europe is 109.8/100.000 women per year and it is responsible for 38.4 out of 100.000 deaths per women annually. Significant improvements in both disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) have been obtained with the extensive use of adjuvant systemic therapies. In the last few decades, proliferation markers have been extensively evaluated as prognostic tools in BC. However, the only prognostic factors utilised in clinical decision making are some histologic features (e.g. tumour size, histologic grade, nodal status and lymphovascular invasion), hormone receptor status, HER-2 status and age.

Ki-67 is present in all proliferating cells and there is great interest in its role as a marker of proliferation. The Ki-67 antibody reacts with a nuclear non-histone protein of 395 KD present in all active phases of the cell cycle except the G0 phase. MIB-1 is a monoclonal antibody against recombinant parts of the Ki-67 antigen; a good correlation exists between Ki-67 and MIB-1.

Recently, gene array techniques have revealed the Ki-67 gene's role in several ‘proliferation signatures’, showing that a set of genes with increased expression patterns is correlated with tumour cell proliferation rates, as assessed by the Ki-67 labelling index. Moreover, Ki-67 is one of the 21 prospectively selected genes of the Oncotype DXTM assay used to predict the risk of recurrence in a node-negative, tamoxifen-treated BC population enrolled in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-14 (NSABP B-14), as well to predict the magnitude of chemotherapy benefit in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive BC enrolled in the NSABP B20 trial.

Despite the large number of published papers analyzing the prognostic role of Ki-67 in early BC, it is still not considered as an established factor to be used in clinical practice, probably because most of the studies are retrospective and because some uncertainty remains on the way Ki-67 should be assessed. Therefore, due to the fact that a more convincing demonstration of the Ki-67 prognostic role, in early BC, would be of value for initiating further research on the assessment methods of Ki-67, we performed this literature-based meta-analysis to better quantify the prognostic impact of Ki-67 expression.

Publication selection

For this meta-analysis, we selected studies evaluating the relationship between Ki-67/MIB-1 status and prognosis in early BC published until May 2006. To fulfill our selection criteria, the studies had to have been published as a full paper in English. Articles were identified by an electronic PubMed search using the following keywords: ‘breast cancer’,‘Ki-67’,‘MIB-1’,‘proliferative index’, ‘proliferative marker’, ‘survival’ and ‘prognostic’. We also screened references from the relevant literature, including all the identified studies and reviews. To avoid duplicate data, we identified articles that included the same cohort of patients by reviewing interstudy similarity in the country in which the study was performed, investigators in the study, source of patients, recruitment period and inclusion criteria. Therefore, when the authors reported the same patient population in several publications, only the most recent or complete study was included in this analysis.

Data extraction

Information was carefully extracted from all publications by three authors (EA, GC and MP). The following data were collected from each study: publication date, first author's last name, antibody and cut-off used for assessing Ki-67 positivity, distribution of Ki-67 status, follow-up period, treatment, nodal status and data allowing us to estimate the impact of Ki-67 expression on DFS and/or OS.

We did not define any minimal number of patients to include a study in our meta-analysis, nor a minimal duration of median follow-up. The exclusion criteria are described below and were not driven by the study individual results.

Statistical methods

Ki-67 was considered positive or negative according to the cut-off values provided by the authors. For the quantitative aggregation of the survival results, the impact of Ki-67 expression on prognosis was measured using Hazard Ratio (HR). For each study, this HR was estimated by a method depending on the results provided in the original publication. The most accurate method was to retrieve the estimated HR and its variance using two of the following parameters: the HR point estimate, the log-rank statistic or its P-value, and the O–E statistic (difference between numbers of observed and expected events) or its variance. If those data were not available, we looked for the total number of events, the number of patients at risk in each group and the log-rank statistic or its P-value, to estimate the HR. Finally, if the only useful data were in the form of graphical representations of the survival distributions, we extracted from them the survival rates at specified time-points in order to reconstruct the HR estimate and its variance, with the assumption that the rate of patients censored was constant during the study follow-up.

Three independent persons read the curves to reduce reading variability. If authors reported survival of three or more groups, we pooled the results to make feasible a comparison between two groups. Whenever possible, HR estimates for subgroups were calculated, such as in node-negative, node-positive or untreated patients. Results were crosschecked with those from the original publication to be sure that they are not discrepant, in particular when reading of the survival rates had to be performed on the survival curves.

The individual HR estimates were combined into an overall HR using the Peto's method that was first used and published in 1985. We carried out heterogeneity χ2-tests, and if the assumption of homogeneity of individual HRs had to be rejected, we used a random-effect model in place of a fixed-effect model. By convention, an observed HR>1 implied a worse prognosis for the group with positive Ki-67 expression. This impact of Ki-67 on survival was considered to be statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the overall HR did not overlap 1. We have used the authors’ definitions for DFS and OS.

All the statistical calculations for our meta-analysis were performed with personal computing.

Characteristics of the studies

Out of 68 studies published between the years 1989 and 2006, 46 had the sufficient information for HR extraction, including 38 studies evaluable for DFS and 35 for OS, some of them being evaluable for only one of these end points, or they analysed only one of these end points. Tables 1 and 2 list the evaluable studies with their main characteristics, and Table 3 presents the main results of this meta-analysis. The reasons to consider an article as non-evaluable were: (a) no univariate analysis reported; (b) no possibility to calculate HR using one of the methods mentioned above due to the fact that the distribution of Ki-67 was not reported in the article, or sometimes Ki-67 was analysed in combination with other prognostic markers rendering the analysis impossible; (c) overlapping data published in different journals; and (d) inclusion of metastatic BC patients. Table 4 lists all the studies considered non-evaluable for this meta-analysis, but used at sensitivity analysis.

The number of patients included across all studies varied from 42 to 863, and the follow-up period varied from 23.6 months (mean) to 16.3 years (median). Different antibodies were used through all trials: anti-Ki-67 was used in 24 studies (52.1%), anti-MIB-1 in 24 studies (52.1%), both antibodies were performed in five studies, anti-Ki-S5 in two studies and anti-Ki-S11 in one study. The different cut-off values used were those of the authors (range: 3.5–34%). Threshold definitions were mean or median values, the best cut-off value or an established arbitrary value.

Out of the 38 evaluable studies for DFS (10 954 patients), subgroup analysis was possible in 15 studies with node-negative patients (3370 patients), in eight with node-positive patients (1430 patients) and in six with untreated node-negative patients (736 patients). Regarding OS (9472 patients), of all 35 studies, subgroup analysis was possible in nine studies with node-negative patients (1996 patients), in four with node-positive patients (857 patients) and in two that included only untreated patients (node-negative and node-positive) (284 patients).

Meta-analysis

The main meta-analyses results (overall population and DFS/OS) are shown in Figures 1 and 2. For the overall population, worse DFS (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.74–2.14; P<0.001) and OS (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.70–2.24; P<0.001) were observed among patients considered as Ki-67 positive. Worse prognosis was observed independently both in node-negative (DFS (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.83–2.92; P<0.001); OS (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.65–3.91; P<0.001)) and in node-positive patients (DFS (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.35–1.87; P<0.001); OS (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.83–2.95; P<0.001)). For the untreated patients subgroup analysis, worse DFS was found in all node-negative patients (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.97–3.75; P<0.001), as well as worse OS in node-negative and node-positive patients taken together (HR1.79, 95% CI 1.22–2.63; P=0.001).

The necessity to exclude some studies due to a lack of results for aggregating the results is a well-known important problem when conducting a meta-analysis, because the excluded studies show often a smaller effect compared to the studies published with full details and evaluable for the meta-analysis. To assess the impact of bias related to the unevaluable studies (that might lead to an overestimation of the effect), we performed an analysis on the overall patient populations including both evaluable and unevaluable studies. For papers reporting only HR estimates obtained in multivariate analyses, we used this HR estimate together with its variance. For those with uncertainties related to the number of events and then the variance of the HR estimate, we made rough approximation of the variance. Finally, for the studies where no useful information could be retrieved from the publication, we considered that the HR estimate was 1 (i.e. no impact at all for Ki-67) and used a minimal variance compared to the included studies of the same size. Even by carrying out this sensitivity analysis, we still observe a significant pejorative impact of Ki-67 positivity on DFS (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.56–1.95; P<0.001; heterogeneity test P<0.001) and OS (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.54–2.00; P<0.001; heterogeneity test P<0.001).

DISCUSSION

The present meta-analysis confirms that high Ki-67 expression in patients with early BC confers worse prognosis in the overall population and quantifies its prognostic univariate impact. Further, it was also shown in subgroup analyses for node-negative, node-positive and untreated patients. This is the first meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the association between Ki-67/MIB-1 expression and prognosis in early BC. Prognostic markers may be defined as those markers that are associated with some clinical outcomes, typically a time-to-event outcome such as OS or DFS, independently of any treatment or intervention. The best setting to apply this concept is in untreated populations, which helps identifying the so-called pure prognostic marker. Prognostic markers may also be used to aid the decision-making process for adjuvant therapy, for example, they may be used as decision aids in determining whether a patient should receive adjuvant chemotherapy or how aggressive that therapy should be.

Ki-67 has been assayed in many studies as a prognostic and/or predictive marker in early BC. As a predictive marker, very few trials of primary systemic therapy, mostly retrospective and with conflicting results have been published, and therefore we felt that the assessment of the predictive role of Ki-67 was out of scope for this meta-analysis.

Our meta-analysis was carried out using literature published results, and we therefore acknowledge some limitations of our approach which is, however, much less expensive than a meta-analysis using individual patients data. The language selection could favour positive studies, following the assumption that they are more often published in English, whereas the negative ones tend to be published more often in local journals using the author's native languages. However, we did not identify many papers published in a national language (Italian, Russian, Serbian, German). This may be called the ‘Tower of Babel bias’ and, in at least one of 36 consecutive meta-analyses, the exclusion of papers for linguistic reasons produced different results from those which would have been obtained if this exclusion criterion had not been used. Another possible source of confusion is the use of the same cohort of patients in different publications, although studies that were clearly based on the analysis of the same patient cohorts were excluded in this meta-analysis.

Some authors consider meta-analyses using individual data to be the gold standard evidence. This approach is normally considered to be a new study that takes into account all performed studies on the topic, published or not, and that requires an individual data update by the investigators; it is thus much more time consuming, complex and costly. In a comparison between a meta-analysis based on individual patient data and one based on extracted data, the overall duration for the former was found to be 1–5 years while for the latter it is only 1–5 months. Additionally, the overall cost to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis is $50 000 to $500 000, whereas for an extracted data study it is in the range of $5000 to $30 000. Therefore, a meta-analysis on published literature is worthwhile and, especially in a situation, as here, it is very unlikely to find the resources to conduct a meta-analysis based on the individual data.

The method used for extrapolating HR might be a source of some variability in the HR estimates. When no other useful information was available, we extrapolated the HR from the survival curves using several time points during follow-up for reading the corresponding survival rates, assuming that censored observations were uniformly distributed. The estimation of survival rates based on the graphical representation of the survival curves was performed independently by three of the authors and we compared our HR estimate and its statistical significance with the results published in each individual trial. We did not identify any major contradiction between our results and the results available in the papers.

The adverse impact of Ki-67 positivity on both OS and DFS was observed in the overall population as well as in the subgroups node-negative and node-positive patients. Significant heterogeneity was detected when considering the whole population and node-negative patients. It is not considered appropriate to define a single measure (i.e. HR associated with Ki-67 positivity in this case) from studies with inherent dissimilarities. The observed disparity among the conclusions of different studies, responsible for the observed heterogeneity, can be quantified by applying quality scores to the selected studies included in the meta-analysis. However, these scores do not always explain the observed results. In this case, the methodological characteristics of each study must be taken into consideration.

In 1992, reported better success in staining Ki-67 in paraffin-embedded samples after the new antibodies anti-MIB-1 and anti-MIB-3 had been developed. Although several antibodies are now commercially available to stain Ki-67, anti-MIB-1 is the most frequently used in recent studies. In our meta-analysis, antibodies other than anti-MIB-1 and anti-Ki-67 were included, such as anti-Ki-S5 and anti-Ki-S11, albeit representing only a minority of the cases. Moreover, Ki-67 expression is usually estimated as the percentage of tumour cells positively stained by the antibody, with nuclear staining being the most common criteria of positivity. The use of different antibodies and scoring protocols without a standard minimum number of cells to be counted may account for some of the differences between the studies.

In our meta-analysis, some studies have used 10% as the cut-off (arbitrary value), whereas others have chosen mean, median, the optimal cut-off value or arbitrary values, and these differences might be responsible for the difficulty in determining a standard threshold in daily practice. However, some authors have described that the choice of the cut-off point for IHC may depend on the clinical objective: if Ki-67 is used to exclude patients with slowly proliferating tumours from chemotherapeutic protocols, a cut-off of 10% will help avoid overtreatment. In contrast, if Ki-67 is used to identify patients sensitive to chemotherapy protocols, it is preferable to set the cut-off at 25%. In the context of this meta-analysis, we may assume that increased Ki-67 leads to an increased risk of relapse and/or death and that a relative increase is estimated although the baseline risk (the risk in the group considered Ki-67 negative) is not the same in all the studies.

A further limitation of our meta-analysis is that it assesses only the univariate prognostic value of Ki-67. So, we cannot infer from our meta-analysis that Ki-67 is an independent factor; the answer to that question should come from a prospective study (it is likely that a meta-analysis of individual data would not solve the question as the intersection of the sets of covariates available in the individual studies is most probably very small).

To better clarify the prognostic role of ER status, used gene array profiling to explore the implications of the joint distribution of ER status and gene expression grade index (GGI) to predict clinical outcome. They found that almost all ER-negative tumours were associated with high GGI scores (high grade), whereas ER-positive tumours were associated with a heterogeneous mixture of GGI values. This means that GGI adds additional prognostic information when the ER status is known, whereas the opposite is not true. Unfortunately, due to the lack of information in the published studies used in our study, an analysis of the impact of Ki-67 expression on the ER-negative and ER-positive subpopulations and grade, which are well-known risk factor associated with worse outcome, was not possible. Table 5 summarises the main results of the recent genes signatures for prognosis/prediction in BC.

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports of tumour markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is quite small. The REporting of tumour MARKer Studies (REMARK) guidelines was the major task of the NCI-EORTC First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnosis, representing a collaborative effort of statisticians, clinicians and laboratory scientists. The guidelines contain 20 recommendations derived from studies on tumour markers and regarding study design, methods of statistical analysis, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, and assay methods. The widespread use of published guidelines for analytical methods and the reporting of results would greatly facilitate the development of alternative analyses and meta-analyses.

Despite some limitations, this meta-analysis supports the prognostic role of Ki-67 in early BC, by showing a significant association between its expression and the risk of recurrence and death in all populations considered and for both outcomes, DFS and OS. Had the proposed REMARK guidelines been employed in all the studies selected for this meta-analysis and had all necessary information been available, our literature-based meta-analysis would better characterise the role of Ki-67 as prognostic marker.

References 97

  1. 1.

    Alonzo TA (2005 ) Standards for reporting prognostic tumor marker studies. J Clin Oncol 23: 9053–9054

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.04.3778

  2. 2.

    Beck T, Weller EE, Weikel W, Brumm C, Wilkens C, Knapstein PG (1995 ) Usefulness of immunohistochemical staining for p53 in the prognosis of breast carcinomas: correlations with established prognosis parameters and with the proliferation marker, MIB-1. Gynecol Oncol 57: 96–104

    Not in our library10.1006/gyno.1995.1104

  3. 3.

    Bevilacqua P, Verderio P, Barbareschi M, Bonoldi E, Boracchi P, Dalla Palma P, Gasparini G (1996 ) Lack of prognostic significance of the monoclonal antibody Ki-S1, a novel marker of proliferative activity, in node-negative breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37: 123–133

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01806494

  4. 4.

    Biesterfeld S, Kluppel D, Koch R, Schneider S, Steinhagen G, Mihalcea AM, Schroder W (1998 ) Rapid and prognostically valid quantification of immunohistochemical reactions by immunohistometry of the most positive tumour focus. A prospective follow-up study on breast cancer using antibodies against MIB-1, PCNA, ER, and PR. J Pathol 185: 25–31

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1096-9896(199805)185:1<25::aid-path40>3.0.co;2-r

  5. 5.

    Billgren AM, Tani E, Liedberg A, Skoog L, Rutqvist LE (2002 ) Prognostic significance of tumor cell proliferation analyzed in fine needle aspirates from primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 71: 161–170

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1013899614656

  6. 6.

    Bos R, van der Groep P, Greijer AE, Shvarts A, Meijer S, Pinedo HM, Semenza GL, van Diest PJ, van der Wall E (2003 ) Levels of hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha independently predict prognosis in patients with lymph node negative breast carcinoma. Cancer 97: 1573–1581

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.11246

  7. 7.
    Ki67 immunostaining in primary breast cancer: pathological and clinical associations · 1989
    No notice
  8. 8.

    Brown RW, Allred CD, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Hilsenbeck SG (1996 ) Prognostic value of Ki-67 compared to S-phase fraction in axillary node-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2: 585–592

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Bukholm IR, Bukholm G, Holm R, Nesland JM (2003 ) Association between histology grade, expression of HsMCM2, and cyclin A in human invasive breast carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 56: 368–373

    Not in our library10.1136/jcp.56.5.368

  10. 10.

    Caly M, Genin P, Ghuzlan AA, Elie C, Freneaux P, Klijanienko J, Rosty C, Sigal-Zafrani B, Vincent-Salomon A, Douggaz A, Zidane M, Sastre-Garau X (2004 ) Analysis of correlation between mitotic index, MIB1 score and S-phase fraction as proliferation markers in invasive breast carcinoma. Methodological aspects and prognostic value in a series of 257 cases. Anticancer Res 24: 3283–3288

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    Cattoretti G, Becker MH, Key G, Duchrow M, Schluter C, Galle J, Gerdes J (1992 ) Monoclonal antibodies against recombinant parts of the Ki-67 antigen (MIB 1 and MIB 3) detect proliferating cells in microwave-processed formalin-fixed paraffin sections. J Pathol 168: 357–363

    Not in our library10.1002/path.1711680404

  12. 12.

    Ceccarelli C, Trere D, Santini D, Taffurelli M, Chieco P, Derenzini M (2000 ) AgNORs in breast tumours. Micron 31: 143–149

    Not in our library10.1016/s0968-4328(99)00071-2

  13. 13.

    Clahsen PC, van de Velde CJ, Duval C, Pallud C, Mandard AM, Delobelle-Deroide A, van den Broek L, van de Vijver MJ (1999 ) The utility of mitotic index, oestrogen receptor and Ki-67 measurements in the creation of novel prognostic indices for node-negative breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 25: 356–363

    Not in our library10.1053/ejso.1999.0657

  14. 14.

    Colozza M, Azambuja E, Cardoso F, Sotiriou C, Larsimont D, Piccart MJ (2005 ) Proliferative markers as prognostic and predictive tools in early breast cancer: where are we now? Ann Oncol 16: 1723–1739

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdi352

  15. 15.

    Costarelli L, Piro FR, Fortunato L, Vitelli CE, Farina M, Taffuri M, Amini M, Nofroni I (2005 ) Predictive variables of lymphatic metastasis in breast carcinoma with a diameter below 2 cm. Suppl Tumori 4: S172

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    Domagala W, Markiewski M, Harezga B, Dukowicz A, Osborn M (1996 ) Prognostic significance of tumor cell proliferation rate as determined by the MIB-1 antibody in breast carcinoma: its relationship with vimentin and p53 protein. Clin Cancer Res 2: 147–154

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    EBCTCG (2005 ) Early Breast Cancer Trialist's Collaborative Group (EBCTCG)@ Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365: 1687–1717

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66544-0

  18. 18.

    Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G (1997 ) Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350: 326–329

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(97)02419-7

  19. 19.

    Eifel P, Axelson JA, Costa J, Crowley J, Curran Jr WJ, Deshler A, Fulton S, Hendricks CB, Kemeny M, Kornblith AB, Louis TA, Markman M, Mayer R, Roter D (2001 ) National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1–3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 979–989

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/93.13.979

  20. 20.

    Erdem O, Dursun A, Coskun U, Gunel N (2005 ) The prognostic value of p53 and c-erbB-2 expression, proliferative activity and angiogenesis in node-negative breast carcinoma. Tumori 91: 46–52

    Not in our library10.1177/030089160509100109

  21. 21.

    Esteva FJ, Sahin AA, Smith TL, Yang Y, Pusztai L, Nahta R, Buchholz TA, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN, Bacus SS (2004 ) Prognostic significance of phosphorylated P38 mitogen-activated protein kinase and HER-2 expression in lymph node-positive breast carcinoma. Cancer 100: 499–506

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.11940

  22. 22.

    Fresno M, Molina R, Perez del Rio MJ, Alvarez S, Diaz-Iglesias JM, Garcia I, Herrero A (1997 ) p53 expression is of independent predictive value in lymph node-negative breast carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 33: 1268–1274

    Not in our library10.1016/s0959-8049(97)00096-8

  23. 23.

    Gaglia P, Bernardi A, Venesio T, Caldarola B, Lauro D, Cappa AP, Calderini P, Liscia DS (1993 ) Cell proliferation of breast cancer evaluated by anti-BrdU and anti-Ki-67 antibodies: its prognostic value on short-term recurrences. Eur J Cancer 29A: 1509–1513

    Not in our library10.1016/0959-8049(93)90284-m

  24. 24.

    Galiegue S, Casellas P, Kramar A, Tinel N, Simony-Lafontaine J (2004 ) Immunohistochemical assessment of the peripheral benzodiazepine receptor in breast cancer and its relationship with survival. Clin Cancer Res 10: 2058–2064

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-03-0988

  25. 25.

    Gasparini G, Bevilacqua P, Pozza F, Meli S, Boracchi P, Marubini E, Sainsbury JR (1992 ) Value of epidermal growth factor receptor status compared with growth fraction and other factors for prognosis in early breast cancer. Br J Cancer 66: 970–976

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.1992.394

  26. 26.

    Gasparini G, Boracchi P, Bevilacqua P, Mezzetti M, Pozza F, Weidner N. (1994 ) A multiparametric study on the prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor in operable breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 29: 59–71

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00666182

  27. 27.

    Gerdes J, Schwab U, Lemke H, Stein H (1983 ) Production of a mouse monoclonal antibody reactive with a human nuclear antigen associated with cell proliferation. Int J Cancer 31: 13–20

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.2910310104

  28. 28.

    Glinsky GV, Berezovska O, Glinskii AB (2005 ) Microarray analysis identifies a death-from-cancer signature predicting therapy failure in patients with multiple types of cancer. J Clin Invest 115: 1503–1521

    Not in our library10.1172/jci23412

  29. 29.

    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ (2003 ) Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21: 3357–3365

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2003.04.576

  30. 30.

    Gonzalez MA, Pinder SE, Callagy G, Vowler SL, Morris LS, Bird K, Bell JA, Laskey RA, Coleman N (2003 ) Minichromosome maintenance protein 2 is a strong independent prognostic marker in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21: 4306–4313

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2003.04.121

  31. 31.

    Goodson WH, Moore DH III, Ljung BM II, Chew K, Mayall B, Smith HS, Waldman FM (2000 ) The prognostic value of proliferation indices: a study with in vivo bromodeoxyuridine and Ki-67. Breast Cancer Res Treat 59: 113–123

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1006344010050

  32. 32.

    Greenland S (1994 ) Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 140: 290–296

    Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117248

  33. 33.

    Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J (1995 ) Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol 48: 159–163

    Not in our library10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-b

  34. 34.

    Haerslev T, Jacobsen GK, Zedeler K (1996 ) Correlation of growth fraction by Ki-67 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) immunohistochemistry with histopathological parameters and prognosis in primary breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37: 101–113

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01806492

  35. 35.

    Harbeck N, Dettmar P, Thomssen C, Berger U, Ulm K, Kates R, Hofler H, Janicke F, Graeff H, Schmitt M (1999 ) Risk-group discrimination in node-negative breast cancer using invasion and proliferation markers: 6-year median follow-up. Br J Cancer 80: 419–426

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.bjc.6690373

  36. 36.

    Hayes DF (2005 ) Prognostic and predictive factors revisited. Breast 14: 493–499

    Not in our library10.1016/j.breast.2005.08.023

  37. 37.

    Heatley MK, Ewings P, Odling Smee W, Maxwell P, Toner PG (2002 ) Vimentin expression does not assist in predicting survival in ductal carcinoma of the breast. Pathology 34: 230–232

    Not in our library10.1080/00313020220131273

  38. 38.

    Hlupic L, Jakic-Razumovic J, Bozikov J, Coric M, Belev B, Vrbanec D (2004 ) Prognostic value of different factors in breast carcinoma. Tumori 90: 112–119

    Not in our library10.1177/030089160409000123

  39. 39.

    Jacquemier JD, Penault-Llorca FM, Bertucci F, Sun ZZ, Houvenaeghel GF, Geneix JA, Puig BD, Bardou VJ, Hassoun JA, Birnbaum D, Viens PJ (1998 ) Angiogenesis as a prognostic marker in breast carcinoma with conventional adjuvant chemotherapy: a multiparametric and immunohistochemical analysis. J Pathol 184: 130–135

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1096-9896(199802)184:2<130::aid-path19>3.0.co;2-w

  40. 40.

    Jalava PJ, Collan YU, Kuopio T, Juntti-Patinen L, Kronqvist P (2000 ) Bcl-2 immunostaining: a way to finding unresponsive postmenopausal N+ breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res 20: 1213–1219

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    Jansen RL, Hupperets PS, Arends JW, Joosten-Achjanie SR, Volovics A, Schouten HC, Hillen HF (1998 ) MIB-1 labelling index is an independent prognostic marker in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 78: 460–465

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.1998.515

  42. 42.

    Jensen V, Ladekarl M, Holm-Nielsen P, Melsen F, Soerensen FB (1995 ) The prognostic value of oncogenic antigen 519 (OA-519) expression and proliferative activity detected by antibody MIB-1 in node-negative breast cancer. J Pathol 176: 343–352

    Not in our library10.1002/path.1711760405

  43. 43.

    Keshgegian AA, Cnaan A (1995 ) Proliferation markers in breast carcinoma. Mitotic figure count, S-phase fraction, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, Ki-67 and MIB-1. Am J Clin Pathol 104: 42–49

    Not in our library10.1093/ajcp/104.1.42

  44. 44.

    Kroger N, Milde-Langosch K, Riethdorf S, Schmoor C, Schumacher M, Zander AR, Loning T (2006 ) Prognostic and predictive effects of immunohistochemical factors in high-risk primary breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 12: 159–168

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-05-1340

  45. 45.

    Kronblad A, Jirstrom K, Ryden L, Nordenskjold B, Landberg G (2006 ) Hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha is a prognostic marker in premenopausal patients with intermediate to highly differentiated breast cancer but not a predictive marker for tamoxifen response. Int J Cancer 118: 2609–2616

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.21676

  46. 46.

    Kushlinskii NE, Orinovskii MB, Gurevich LE, Kazantseva IA, Talaeva S, Ermilova VD, Dvorova EK, Ozherel'ev AS, Letiagin VP (2004 ) The specificity of expression of molecular biological markers in tumors of the mammary gland. Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk 5: 32–36

    Not in our library

  47. 47.

    Lampe B, Hantschmann P, Dimpfl T (1998 ) Prognostic relevance of immunohistology, tumor size and vascular space involvement in axillary node negative breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 261: 139–146

    Not in our library10.1007/s004040050213

  48. 48.

    Lau R, Grimson R, Sansome C, Tornos C, Moll UM (2001 ) Low levels of cell cycle inhibitor p27kip1 combined with high levels of Ki-67 predict shortened disease-free survival in T1 and T2 invasive breast carcinomas. Int J Oncol 18: 17–23

    Not in our library10.3892/ijo.18.1.17

  49. 49.

    Lelle RJ (1990 ) Insitu determination of the Ki-67 growth fraction (Ki-67 GF) in human tumors (studies in breast cancer). Acta Histochem Suppl 39: 109–124

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    Liu D, Baltayan A, Naritoku WY, Barr NJ, Young LL, Chaiwun B, Tsao-Wei DD, Groshen SL, Taylor CR, Torloni H, Neville AM, Cote RJ, Imam SA (2000 ) LEA. 135 expression: its comparison with other prognostic biomarkers for patients with primary breast carcinoma. Anticancer Res 20: 1451–1461

    Not in our library

  51. 51.

    Liu S, Edgerton SM, Moore DH, Thor AD II (2001 ) Measures of cell turnover (proliferation and apoptosis) and their association with survival in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 7: 1716–1723

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    Locker AP, Birrell K, Bell JA, Nicholson RI, Elston CW, Blamey RW, Ellis IO (1992 ) Ki67 immunoreactivity in breast carcinoma: relationships to prognostic variables and short term survival. Eur J Surg Oncol 18: 224–229

    Not in our library

  53. 53.

    McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM (2005 ) Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies. J Clin Oncol 23: 9067–9072

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2004.01.0454

  54. 54.

    Michalides R, van Tinteren H, Balkenende A, Vermorken JB, Benraadt J, Huldij J, van Diest P (2002 ) Cyclin A is a prognostic indicator in early stage breast cancer with and without tamoxifen treatment. Br J Cancer 86: 402–408

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.bjc.6600072

  55. 55.

    Michels JJ, Duigou F, Marnay J, Henry-Amar M, Delozier T, Denoux Y, Chasle J (2003 ) Flow cytometry and quantitative immunohistochemical study of cell cycle regulation proteins in invasive breast carcinoma: prognostic significance. Cancer 97: 1376–1386

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.11209

  56. 56.

    Miller LD, Smeds J, George J, Vega VB, Vergara L, Ploner A, Pawitan Y, Hall P, Klaar S, Liu ET, Bergh J (2005 ) An expression signature for p53 status in human breast cancer predicts mutation status, transcriptional effects, and patient survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 13550–13555

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0506230102

  57. 57.

    Molino A, Micciolo R, Turazza M, Bonetti F, Piubello Q, Bonetti A, Nortilli R, Pelosi G, Cetto GL (1997 ) Ki-67 immunostaining in 322 primary breast cancers: associations with clinical and pathological variables and prognosis. Int J Cancer 74: 433–437

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19970822)74:4<433::aid-ijc12>3.0.co;2-a

  58. 58.

    Mottolese M, Benevolo M, Del Monte G, Buglioni S, Papaldo P, Nistico C, Di Filippo F, Vasselli S, Vici P, Botti C (2000 ) Role of P53 and BCL-2 in high-risk breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 126: 722–729

    Not in our library10.1007/pl00008478

  59. 59.

    Oh DS, Troester MA, Usary J, Hu Z, He X, Fan C, Wu J, Carey LA, Perou CM (2006 ) Estrogen-regulated genes predict survival in hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. J Clin Oncol 24: 1656–1664

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.03.2755

  60. 60.

    Oxman AD, Clarke MJ, Stewart LA (1995 ) From science to practice. Meta-analyses using individual patient data are needed. JAMA 274: 845–846

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.274.10.845

  61. 61.

    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Walker MG, Watson D, Park T, Hiller W, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Bryant J, Wolmark N (2004 ) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351: 2817–2826

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa041588

  62. 62.

    Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Watson D, Bryant J, Costantino JP, Geyer Jr CE, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N (2006 ) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24: 3726–3734

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.04.7985

  63. 63.

    Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L (1998 ) Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 17: 2815–2834

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8

  64. 64.

    Pellikainen MJ, Pekola TT, Ropponen KM, Kataja VV, Kellokoski JK, Eskelinen MJ, Kosma VM (2003 ) p21WAF1 expression in invasive breast cancer and its association with p53, AP-2, cell proliferation, and prognosis. J Clin Pathol 56: 214–220

    Not in our library10.1136/jcp.56.3.214

  65. 65.
    Distinctive gene expression patterns in human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancers · 1999
    Not checked
  66. 66.

    Pestalozzi BC, Luporsi-Gely E, Jost LM, Bergh J (2005 ) ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up of primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 16(Suppl 1): i7–i9

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdi825

  67. 67.

    Piedbois P, Buyse M (2004 ) Meta-analyses based on abstracted data: a step in the right direction, but only a first step. J Clin Oncol 22: 3839–3841

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2004.06.924

  68. 68.

    Pierga JY, Leroyer A, Viehl P, Mosseri V, Chevillard S, Magdelenat H (1996 ) Long term prognostic value of growth fraction determination by Ki-67 immunostaining in primary operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37: 57–64

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01806632

  69. 69.

    Pietilainen T, Lipponen P, Aaltomaa S, Eskelinen M, Kosma VM, Syrjanen K (1996 ) The important prognostic value of Ki-67 expression as determined by image analysis in breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 122: 687–692

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01209033

  70. 70.
    Assessment of the new proliferation marker MIB1 in breast carcinoma using image analysis: associations with other prognostic factors and survival · 1995
    No notice
  71. 71.

    Pinto AE, Andre S, Pereira T, Nobrega S, Soares J (2001 ) Prognostic comparative study of S-phase fraction and Ki-67 index in breast carcinoma. J Clin Pathol 54: 543–549

    Not in our library10.1136/jcp.54.7.543

  72. 72.

    Querzoli P, Albonico G, Ferretti S, Rinaldi R, Magri E, Indelli M, Nenci I (1996 ) MIB-1 proliferative activity in invasive breast cancer measured by image analysis. J Clin Pathol 49: 926–930

    Not in our library10.1136/jcp.49.11.926

  73. 73.

    Railo M, Lundin J, Haglund C, von Smitten K, von Boguslawsky K, Nordling S (1997 ) Ki-67, p53, Er-receptors, ploidy and S-phase as prognostic factors in T1 node negative breast cancer. Acta Oncol 36: 369–374

    Not in our library10.3109/02841869709001282

  74. 74.

    Railo M, Nordling S, von Boguslawsky K, Leivonen M, Kyllonen L, von Smitten K (1993 ) Prognostic value of Ki-67 immunolabelling in primary operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 68: 579–583

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.1993.389

  75. 75.

    Rudas M, Gnant MF, Mittlbock M, Neumayer R, Kummer A, Jakesz R, Reiner G, Reiner A (1994 ) Thymidine labeling index and Ki-67 growth fraction in breast cancer: comparison and correlation with prognosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 32: 165–175

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00665767

  76. 76.

    Rudolph P, Alm P, Heidebrecht HJ, Bolte H, Ratjen V, Baldetorp B, Ferno M, Olsson H, Parwaresch R (1999a ) Immunologic proliferation marker Ki-S2 as prognostic indicator for lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 271–278

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/91.3.271

  77. 77.

    Rudolph P, MacGrogan G, Bonichon F, Frahm SO, de Mascarel I, Trojani M, Durand M, Avril A, Coindre JM, Parwaresch R (1999b ) Prognostic significance of Ki-67 and topoisomerase IIalpha expression in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. A multivariate analysis of 863 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 55: 61–71

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1006159016703

  78. 78.

    Sahin AA, Ro J, Ro JY, Blick MB, el-Naggar AK, Ordonez NG, Fritsche HA, Smith TL, Hortobagyi GN, Ayala AG (1991 ) Ki-67 immunostaining in node-negative stage I/II breast carcinoma. Significant correlation with prognosis. Cancer 68: 549–557

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19910801)68:3<549::aid-cncr2820680318>3.0.co;2-j

  79. 79.

    Seshadri R, Leong AS, McCaul K, Firgaira FA, Setlur V, Horsfall DJ (1996 ) Relationship between p53 gene abnormalities and other tumour characteristics in breast-cancer prognosis. Int J Cancer 69: 135–141

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19960422)69:2<135::aid-ijc12>3.0.co;2-8

  80. 80.

    Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Tutt A, Ellis P, Buyse M, Delorenzi M, Piccart MJ (2006 ) Comprehensive analysis integrating both clinicopathological and gene expression data in more than 1500 samples: proliferation captured by gene expression grade index appears to be the strongest prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC). J Clin Oncol 24: 4S (Abstract 507)

    Not in our library

  81. 81.

    Spyratos F, Ferrero-Pous M, Trassard M, Hacene K, Phillips E, Tubiana-Hulin M, Le Doussal V (2002 ) Correlation between MIB-1 and other proliferation markers: clinical implications of the MIB-1 cutoff value. Cancer 94: 2151–2159

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.10458

  82. 82.

    Stewart LA, Parmar MK (1993 ) Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet 341: 418–422

    Not in our library10.1016/0140-6736(93)93004-k

  83. 83.

    Thor AD, Liu S, Moore DH, Edgerton SM II (1999 ) Comparison of mitotic index, in vitro bromodeoxyuridine labeling, and MIB-1 assays to quantitate proliferation in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17: 470–477

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1999.17.2.470

  84. 84.

    Topic B, Stankovic N, Savjak D, Grbic S (2002 ) Correlation of size of the primary tumor and axillary node status with the p53 tumor suppressor gene in carcinoma of the breast. Vojnosanit Pregl 59: 29–32

    Not in our library10.2298/vsp0201029t

  85. 85.

    Trihia H, Murray S, Price K, Gelber RD, Golouh R, Goldhirsch A, Coates AS, Collins J, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gusterson BA (2003 ) Ki-67 expression in breast carcinoma: its association with grading systems, clinical parameters, and other prognostic factors – a surrogate marker? Cancer 97: 1321–1331

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.11188

  86. 86.

    Tsutsui S, Yasuda K, Suzuki K, Tahara K, Higashi H, Era S (2005 ) Macrophage infiltration and its prognostic implications in breast cancer: the relationship with VEGF expression and microvessel density. Oncol Rep 14: 425–431

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Tynninen O, von Boguslawski K, Aronen HJ, Paavonen T (1999 ) Prognostic value of vascular density and cell proliferation in breast cancer patients. Pathol Res Pract 195: 31–37

    Not in our library10.1016/s0344-0338(99)80091-0

  88. 88.

    Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M (2005 ) Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23: 7212–7220

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.07.501

  89. 89.

    van't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, Peterse HL, van der Kooy K, Marton MJ, Witteveen AT, Schreiber GJ, Kerkhoven RM, Roberts C, Linsley PS, Bernards R, Friend SH (2002 ) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415: 530–536

    Not in our library10.1038/415530a

  90. 90.

    Veronese SM, Maisano C, Scibilia J (1995 ) Comparative prognostic value of Ki-67 and MIB-1 proliferation indices in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 15: 2717–2722

    Not in our library

  91. 91.

    Wang Y, Klijn JG, Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, Yang F, Talantov D, Timmermans M, Meijer-van Gelder ME, Yu J, Jatkoe T, Berns EM, Atkins D, Foekens JA (2005 ) Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet 365: 671–679

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(05)17947-1

  92. 92.

    Weikel W, Beck T, Mitze M, Knapstein PG (1991 ) Immunohistochemical evaluation of growth fractions in human breast cancers using monoclonal antibody Ki-67. Breast Cancer Res Treat 18: 149–154

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01990030

  93. 93.

    Weikel W, Brumm C, Wilkens C, Beck T, Knapstein PG (1995 ) Growth fractions (Ki-67) in primary breast cancers, with particular reference to node-negative tumors. Cancer Detect Prev 19: 446–450

    Not in our library

  94. 94.

    Whitfield ML, George LK, Grant GD, Perou CM (2006 ) Common markers of proliferation. Nat Rev Cancer 6: 99–106

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc1802

  95. 95.

    Wintzer HO, Zipfel I, Schulte-Monting J, Hellerich U, von Kleist S (1991 ) Ki-67 immunostaining in human breast tumors and its relationship to prognosis. Cancer 67: 421–428

    Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(19910115)67:2<421::aid-cncr2820670217>3.0.co;2-q

  96. 96.

    Yang Q, Sakurai T, Yoshimura G, Suzuma T, Umemura T, Nakamura M, Nakamura Y, Mori I, Kakudo K (2003 ) Prognostic value of Bcl-2 in invasive breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Oncol Rep 10: 121–125

    Not in our library

  97. 97.

    Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P (1985 ) Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 27: 335–371

    Not in our library10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7

Cited by papers we hold 18

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.