Back

Automatic Quantification of Ki-67 Labeling Index in Pediatric Brain Tumors Using QuPath

Spyretos, C.; Pardo Ladino, J. M.; Blomstrand, H.; Nyman, P.; Snodahl, O.; Shamikh, A.; Elander, N. O.; Haj-Hosseini, N.

2025-05-12 pathology
10.1101/2025.05.09.25327292 medRxiv
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWThe quantification of the Ki-67 labeling index (LI) is critical for assessing tumor proliferation and prognosis in tumors, yet manual scoring remains a common practice. This study presents an automated workflow for Ki-67 scoring in whole slide images (WSIs) using an Apache Groovy code script for QuPath, complemented by a Python-based post-processing script, providing cell density maps and summary tables. The tissue and cell segmentation are performed using StarDist, a deep learning model, and adaptive thresholding to classify Ki-67 positive and negative nuclei. The pipeline was applied to a cohort of 632 pediatric brain tumor cases with 734 Ki-67-stained WSIs from the Childrens Brain Tumor Network. Medulloblastoma showed the highest Ki-67 LI (median: 19.84), followed by atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (median: 19.36). Moderate values were observed in brainstem glioma-diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (median: 11.50), high-grade glioma (grades 3 & 4) (median: 9.50), and ependymoma (median: 5.88). Lower indices were found in meningioma (median: 1.84), while the lowest were seen in low-grade glioma (grades 1 & 2) (median: 0.85), dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (median: 0.63), and ganglioglioma (median: 0.50). The results aligned with the consensus of the oncology, demonstrating a significant correlation in Ki-67 LI across most of the tumor families/types, with high malignancy tumors showing the highest proliferation indices and lower malignancy tumors exhibiting lower Ki-67 LI. The automated approach facilitates the assessment of large amounts of Ki-67 WSIs in research settings.

Published in Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.