| Literature DB >> 36009065 |
Xuanzhi Wang1, Mingwu Li1, Xiaofeng Jiang1, Fei Wang1, Shiying Ling1, Chaoshi Niu1,2,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Ki-67 index is an indicator of the active proliferation and aggressive behavior of pituitary adenomas (PAs). Appropriate pre- and intra-operatives of the Ki-67 index can help surgeons develop better and more personalized treatment strategies for patients with PAs. This study aimed to investigate the influence factors for predicting the Ki-67 index in PAs.Entities:
Keywords: Ki-67; blood supply; influence factor; pituitary adenoma; tumor aggression
Year: 2022 PMID: 36009065 PMCID: PMC9405805 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12081002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Clinical characteristics of patients with PAs in the Ki-67 index < 3% and Ki-67 index ≥ 3% cohorts.
| Variables | Ki-67 < 3% (n = 72) | Ki-67 ≥ 3% (n = 106) | t/χ2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 56.94 ± 9.80 | 50.46 ± 12.99 | 3.594 | 0.0004 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 37 (51.39%) | 49 (46.23%) | 0.458 | 0.499 |
| Female | 35 (48.61%) | 57 (53.77%) | ||
| FSH | ||||
| Yes | 34 (47.22%) | 35 (33.02%) | 3.644 | 0.056 |
| No | 38 (52.78%) | 71 (66.98%) | ||
| LH | ||||
| Yes | 13 (18.06%) | 35 (33.02%) | 0.034 | 0.853 |
| No | 59 (81.94%) | 88 (83.02%) | ||
| PRL | ||||
| Yes | 19 (26.39%) | 35 (33.02%) | 0.892 | 0.345 |
| No | 53 (73.61%) | 71 (66.98%) | ||
| GH | ||||
| Yes | 14 (19.44%) | 23 (21.70%) | 0.132 | 0.716 |
| No | 58 (80.56%) | 83 (78.30%) | ||
| TSH | ||||
| Yes | 5 (6.94%) | 4 (3.77%) | 0.898 | 0.343 |
| No | 67 (93.06%) | 102 (96.23%) | ||
| ATCH | ||||
| Yes | 6 (8.33%) | 12 (11.32%) | 0.421 | 0.516 |
| No | 66 (91.67%) | 94 (88.68%) | ||
| Knosp grade | ||||
| <3 | 53 (73.61%) | 81 (76.42%) | 0.181 | 0.670 |
| ≥3 | 19 (26.39%) | 25 (23.58%) | ||
| Tumor breaking through sellar floor | ||||
| Yes | 6 (8.33%) | 14 (13.21%) | 1.021 | 0.312 |
| No | 66 (91.67%) | 92 (86.79%) | ||
| Rich blood supply to the tumor | ||||
| Yes | 27 (37.50%) | 84 (79.25%) | 31.830 | <0.0001 |
| No | 45 (62.50%) | 22 (20.75%) | ||
| Tumor located inside the sella | ||||
| Yes | 26 (36.11%) | 33 (31.13%) | 0.480 | 0.489 |
| No | 46 (63.89%) | 73 (68.87%) | ||
| Erosion of the dorsum sellae bone | ||||
| Yes | 30 (41.67%) | 82 (77.36%) | 23.41 | <0.0001 |
| No | 42 (58.33%) | 24 (22.64%) | ||
| Positive of transcription factor | ||||
| Yes | 56 (77.78%) | 88 (83.02%) | 0.762 | 0.383 |
| No | 16 (22.22%) | 18 (16.98%) |
PAs, pituitary adenomas; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; LH, luteinizing hormone; PRL, prolactin; GH, growth hormone; TSH, thyroid-stimulating hormone; ACTH, adrenocorticotropic hormone.
Figure 1HE staining of a PA, revealing a “chicken-wire” vascular structures (white arrows).
Figure 2The erosion of the dorsum sellae bone: (A,B) intrasellar PA (asterisk) with an enlarged sella and an intact dorsum sellae bone (white arrows); (C,D) Intrasellar PA (asterisk) with an enlarged sella and erosion of the dorsum sellae bone (white arrows).
Multivariate regression analysis of factors related to Ki-67 index.
| Factors | OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.294 | 0.078–1.612 | 0.228 |
| Rich blood supply to the tumor | 0.124 | 0.044–0.355 | 0.000 |
| Erosion of the dorsum sellae bone | 0.162 | 0.057–0.469 | 0.001 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3The ROC curve model of three risk factors was obtained by univariate analysis. AUC, area under the curve.
The AUC values in ROC curves.
| Factors | AUC | SE | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.648 | 0.041 | 0.568–0.728 |
| Rich blood supply to the tumor | 0.709 | 0.041 | 0.629–0.789 |
| Erosion of the dorsum sellae bone | 0.678 | 0.042 | 0.596–0.761 |
| Combined | 0.817 | 0.031 | 0.756–0.879 |
AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; SE, standard error; ROC, operating characteristic curve.
Figure 4Use of a nomogram to predict the state of Ki-67: (A) Clinical and radiological results correspond to a particular point by drawing a straight line up to the point axis. The summary point represents a high (≥3%) probability of Ki-67 when the summary point is located on the total point axis. (B) The calibration curve of the model was consistent with the predicted and observed results. (C) The ROC curve was constructed to evaluate the nomogram identification ability. (D) The ordinate is represented by the net benefit rate, and the abscissa is represented by the high-risk threshold to plot DCA.