Cited by 98Adrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsRenal cell carcinoma treatmentSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment

Validation of the prognostic role of the “Helsinki Score” in 225 cases of adrenocortical carcinoma

Open access
Duregon, Eleonora, Cappellesso, Rocco, Maffeis, Valeria, Zaggia, Barbara, Ventura, Laura, Berruti, Alfredo, Terzolo, Massimo, Fassina, Ambrogio +2 more·2017·Human Pathology

Abstract

Adrenocortical carcinoma patient prognosis is extremely variable and poorly predictable. The newly introduced Helsinki Score is the first so far proposed diagnostic and prognostic system based on the combined evaluation of morphological (mitoses and necrosis) and immunohistochemical (Ki-67) parameters. The aim of the study was to validate the prognostic role of the Helsinki Score for adrenocortical carcinoma characterization. Thus, 225 adrenocortical carcinomas were reclassified using the Weiss Score and the Helsinki Score (3× mitotic count + 5 × necrosis + Ki-67 index). At univariate analysis, statistically significant prognostic values were observed at the log-rank test for mitotic count (cutoff values: <6 and ≥55; P<.0001), Ki-67 (cutoff values: <20 and ≥50; P<.0001), Weiss Score (cutoff values: <5 and ≥8; P<.0001), Helsinki Score (cutoff values: <13 and ≥19; P<.0001), histological variant (conventional versus oncocytic; P=.009), necrosis (P=.001), and stage (P=.005). Cox multivariate analysis using a backward stepwise selection method retained only Helsinki Score and Weiss Score as predictors of poor prognosis (P<.0001 and P=.0005, respectively). Helsinki Score (with a threshold of 28.5 points; area under the curve [AUC]=0.729, 95% confidence interval=0.66-0.79) and Ki-67 (with a threshold of 20.5%; AUC=0.727, 95% confidence interval=0.66-0.79) showed the best and equivalent AUCs predicting disease-related deaths determined using receiver operating characteristic statistics. In conclusion, the Helsinki Score is a valuable system to predict prognosis in adrenocortical carcinoma, outperforming the currently established prognostic parameters.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.humpath.2016.09.035

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Helsinki score incorporates the Ki67 labeling index and has been proposed to be a better predictor of outcome.

    “The Helsinki score used in some centers incorporates the Ki67 labeling index and has been proposed to be a better predictor of outcome (118).”

    From Adrenal incidentaloma (2020) · cites this paper as [118]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 98

Authors
Duregon, E., Cappellesso, R., Maffeis, V., Zaggia, B., Ventura, L., Berruti, A., Terzolo, M., Fassina, A., Volante, M., & Papotti, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • University of Brescia (IT)
Corresponding author
Duregon, Eleonora
Venue
Human Pathology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
62
Pages
1-7
ISSN
0046-8177 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2558363806
Cited by
98
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5
FWCI
9.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Adrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Renal cell carcinoma treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
adrenocortical carcinoma, Weiss score, Ki-67, mitotic count, tumor necrosis, prognostic scoring, oncocytic variant, disease-related death, prognostic validation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adrenal Cortex Neoplasms, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans, Immunohistochemistry, Infant, Italy, Male, Middle Aged, Mitosis, Necrosis, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Proportional Hazards Models, Adrenocortical Carcinoma, Ki-67 Antigen, Area Under Curve, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review