4.7 Article

Ki-67 and outcome in clinically localised prostate cancer: analysis of conservatively treated prostate cancer patients from the Trans-Atlantic Prostate Group study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 100, Issue 6, Pages 888-893

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604951

Keywords

prostate cancer; Ki-67; watchful waiting; active surveillance; biomarker

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. National Institute of Health (SPORE)
  3. Koch Foundation
  4. NCRI
  5. Grand Charity of Freemasons
  6. Orchid Appeal
  7. MRC [G0501019] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [G0501019] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Treatment decisions after diagnosis of clinically localised prostate cancer are difficult due to variability in tumour behaviour. We therefore examined one of the most promising biomarkers in prostate cancer, Ki-67, in a cohort of 808 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1990 and 1996 and treated conservatively. Ki-67 expression was assessed immunohistochemically, in two laboratories, by two different scoring methods and the results compared with cancer-specific and overall survival. The power of the biomarker was compared with Gleason score and initial serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Both methods showed that Ki-67 provided additional prognostic information beyond that available from Gleason score and PSA: for the semi-quantitative method, Delta chi(2) (1 d.f.) = 24.6 (P<0.0001), overall survival chi(2) = 20.5 (P<0.0001), and for the quantitative method, Delta chi(2) (1 d.f.) = 15.1 (P < 0.0001), overall survival chi(2) = 10.85 (P = 0.001). Ki-67 is a powerful biomarker in localised prostate cancer and adds to a model predicting the need for radical or conservative therapy. As it is already in widespread use in routine pathology, it is confirmed as the most promising biomarker to be applied into routine practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available