Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group.

By Mitchell Dowsett, Torsten O. Nielsen, R. A’Hern, J. Bartlett, R. C. Coombes, Jack Cuzick, M. Ellis, N. L. Henry, J. Hugh, T. Lively and 11 more. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011

1,714 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cancer Research, Molecular Biology, Oncology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c866335efe90fc47011105a14d379716a7c42f7d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cancer Research

1. Aleix Prat
2. Mitchell Dowsett
3. Charles M. Perou
4. Lisa A. Carey
5. A. Lluch
6. M. Klinkhammer-Schalke
7. S. Leung
8. M. Koller

In Molecular Biology

1. Charles M. Perou
2. Johan Hartman
3. Lisa A. Carey
4. N. Turner
5. Lisa M. McShane
6. Mattias Rantalainen
7. A. Lluch
8. Masakazu Toi

In Oncology

1. Aleix Prat
2. Charles M. Perou
3. Masakazu Toi
4. David L. Rimm
5. C. Hudis
6. N. Desai

Citations in the corpus

• Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (2020, methodology): “In 2011, we established the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) to review methods of determination of Ki67 levels in breast cancer (11).”
• Molecular biology in breast cancer: intrinsic subtypes and signaling pathways. (2012, background): “In fact, an international consortium has recently published a set of recommendations for Ki67 assessment in breast cancer.(23)”
• Breast Cancer Histopathology Image Analysis: A Review (2014, neutral): “all cell cycle phases except G0 [86].”
• Ki-67 is a prognostic parameter in breast cancer patients: results of a large population-based cohort of a cancer registry (2013, methodology): “They emphasized the potential of Ki-67 involving prognosis, prediction of relative response or deficiency to chemotherapy, and as a dynamic biomarker of the treatment effectiveness [19].”
• Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013 (2013, background): “not currently standardized among laboratories [25–27] (see panel deliberations below).”
• Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for treatment of early breast cancer 2021 (2021, background): “As gene expression signatures are not universally accessible, by necessity the Ki67 score serves as a surrogate for defining proliferation and biological risk, particularly when combined with semiquantitative measures of grade, ER, PR, and HER2 for many women.(14) Given the high-level evidence for c”
• Artificial intelligence as the next step towards precision pathology (2020, methodology): “According to this, factors that primarily affect the IHC results of Ki67 include pre-analytical, analytical, interpretation and scoring, and data analysis steps [23].”
• Ki-67: more than a proliferation marker (2018, background): “This characteristic has made Ki-67 a clinically important proliferation marker for grading multiple types of cancers (Gerdes et al. 1987; Dowsett et al. 2011), with well-established prognostic value in large studies (Luo et al.”