4.4 Article

Ki-67 as a Prognostic Factor in Feline Mammary Carcinoma: What Is the Optimal Cutoff Value?

期刊

VETERINARY PATHOLOGY
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 37-43

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0300985815588606

关键词

feline mammary carcinoma; Ki-67 proliferation index; prognostic factor; cutoff value

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia'' (FCT) project grant [UID/CVT/00276/2013]
  2. [SFRH/BD/70720/2010]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/70720/2010] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ki-67 is a nuclear protein and a proliferation marker frequently used in establishing the prognosis for breast cancer patients. To investigate the prognostic value of the Ki-67 proliferation index in female cats with mammary carcinoma, a prospective study was conducted with 96 animals. The Ki-67 index of primary tumors (n = 96) was initially determined, and whenever possible, the Ki-67 index of regional lymph node metastasis (n = 38) and distant metastasis (n = 16) was also estimated. The optimal cutoff value for the Ki-67 index was determined by univariate and multivariate analysis. Ki-67 indices >= 14% were detected in 72.9% (70 of 96) of the tumors. Tumors with a Ki-67 index >= 14% were significantly associated with large size (P = .022), poor differentiation (P = .009), presence of necrotic areas (P = .008), estrogen receptor-negative status (P < .0001), fHER2-negative status (P = .003), and shorter overall survival (P = .012). Moreover, Ki-67 expression in the primary tumor was strongly and positively correlated with both regional metastasis (P < .0001; r = 0.83) and distant metastasis (P < .0001; r = 0.83), and was significantly higher in distant metastases when compared with the primary tumor (P = .0009). A similar correlation was also observed between regional and distant metastasis (P < .0001; r = 0.75). On the basis of the above results, the authors propose the adoption of the 14% value as the optimal cutoff for Ki-67 to identify tumors with high risk of disease progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据