The fraction of fields showing neoplastic tubules: A practical estimate of tubular differentiation in breast cancer

Histopathology

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 401-410

  Kronqvist, P ^a   Kuopio, T ^b   Pirvu, C ^a   Collan, Y ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^b JYVÄSKYLÄ CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Grading; Morphometry; Point counting; Prognosis; Reproducibility; Tubular differentiation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CORRELATION FUNCTION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION;

EID: 0032723123     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.1999.035005401.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Cross SS. Grading and scoring in histopathology. Histopathology 1998; 33; 99-106.
2. Garne JP, Aspegren K, Linell F, Rank F, Ranstam J. Primary diagnostic factors in invasive breast cancer with special reference to ductal carcinoma and histological malignancy grade. Cancer 1994; 73; 1438-1448.
3. Lipponen PK, Collan Y, Eskelinen MJ. Corrected mitotic index (M/V index), mitotic activity index (MAI), and histological grading in breast cancer. Int. Surg. 1991; 76; 245-249.
4. Tosi P, Luzi P, Sforza V et al. Correlation between morphometrical parameters and disease-free survival in ductal breast cancer treated only by surgery. Appl. Pathol. 1986; 4; 33-42.
5. Roberts AN, Hahnel R. Oestrogen receptor assay and morphology of breast cancer. Pathology 1981; 13; 317-325.
6. Berger U, Wilson P, McClelland KA, Davidson J, Coombes RC. Correlation of immunocytochemically demonstrated estrogen receptor distribution and histopathologic features in primary breast cancer. Human Pathol. 1987; 18; 1263-1267.
7. Clayton F. Pathologic correlates of survival in 378 lymph nodenegative infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas. Mitotic count is the best single predictor. Cancer 1991; 68; 1309-1317.
8. Bloom HJG, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 1957; 11; 359-377.
9. WHO. Histological typing of breast tumours. In International Histological Classification of Tumours, 2nd cdn. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1981.
10. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410.
11. Simpson JF, Page DL. Status of breast cancer prognostication based on histopathologic data. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1994; 102 (Suppl.); S3-S8.
12. Baak JPA, van Dop H, Kurver PHJ, Davidson J, Coombes RC. The value of morphometry to classic prognosticators in breast cancer. Cancer 1985; 56; 374-382.
13. Uyterlinde AM, Baak JPA, Schipper NW, Peterse H, Matze E, Meijer CJL. Further evaluation of the prognostic value of morphometry and flow cytometric parameters in breast-cancer patients with long follow-up. Int J. Cancer 1990; 45; 1-7.
14. Jannink I, van Diest PJ, Baak JP. Comparison of the prognostic value of four methods to assess mitotic activity in 186 invasive breast cancer patients: classical and random mitotic activity assessments with correction for, percentage of epithelium. Human Pathol. 1995; 26; 1086-1092.
15. Baak JPA, Kurver PHJ, de Snoo-Niewlaat AJE, de Graef S, Makkink B, Boon ME. Prognostic indicators in breast cancer - morphometric methods. Histopathology 1982; 6; 327-339.
16. Biesterfeld S, Noll I, Noll E, Wohltmann D, Böcking A. Mitotic frequency as a prognostic factor in breast cancer. Human Pathol. 1995; 26; 47-52.
17. Kronqvist P, Kuopio T, Collan Y. Morphometric grading in breast cancer: thresholds for mitotic counts. Human Pathol. 1998; 29; 1462-1468.
18. Uyterlinde AM, Baak JPA, Schipper NW et al. Prognostic value of morphometry and DNA flow-cytometry features of invasive breast cancer detected by population screening: comparison with control group of hospital patients, Int J. Cancer 1991; 48; 173-181.
19. Van der Linden HC, Baak JPA, Lindeman J, Hermans J, Meyer CJLM. Morphometry and breast cancer. II. Characterisation of breast cancer cells with high malignant potential in patients with spread to lymph nodes: preliminary results. J. Clin. Pathol. 1986; 39; 603-609.
20. Raabe NK, Schistad O, Sauer T, Bofin A, Kaaresen R, Fossaa SD. Prognosis of radically operated breast carcinoma patients. A retrospective study of 167 consecutive patients with emphasis on histopathological grading, reproducibility and mean nuclear area. APMIS 1997; 105; 363-370.
21. Kronqvist P, Kuopio T, Collan Y. Breast cancer prognostication: morphometric thresholds for nuclear grading. Br. J. Cancer 1998; 78; 800-805.
22. Sharkey FE, Pavlak RJ, Greiner AS. Morphometric analysis of differentiation in human breast carcinoma. Tumor grading. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 1983; 107; 406-410.
23. Underwood JCE. A morphometric analysis of human breast carcinoma. Br. J. Cancer 1972; 6; 234-237.
24. Linell F, Ljungberg O, Andersson I. Breast carcinoma. Aspects of early stages, progression and related problems. Acta Pathol Microbiol. Scand. 1980; Sect. A, Suppl. 272; 120-134.
25. Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S, Hacene K, Spyratos F, Brunei M. Prognostic value of histologic grade nuclear components of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR). An improved score modification based on a multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 1989; 64; 1914-21.
26. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project Protocol B-06. 10-year pathologic and clinical prognostic discriminants. Cancer 1993; 71; 2507-2514.
27. Rank F, Dombernowsky P, Bang Jespcrscn NC, Pedersen BV, Keiding N. Histologic malignancy grading of invasive ductal breast carcinoma: a regression analysis of prognostic factors in low-risk carcinomas from a multicenter trial. Cancer 1987; 60; 1299-1305.
28. Stierer M, Rosen H, Weber R. Nuclear pleomorphism, a strong prognostic factor in axillary node-negative small invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat 1991; 20; 109-116.
29. Stierer M, Rosen HR, Weber R. Histologic grading and subfactor analysis as prognostic parameters in patients with breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1990; 82; 1510.
30. Sharkey FE. Morphometric analysis of differentiation in human breast carcinoma. Tumor heterogenity. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 1983; 107; 411-414.
31. Haug H. The significance of quantitative stereologic experimental procedures in pathology. Pathol. Res. Pract. 1980; 166; 144-164.
32. Baak JPA, Oort J. A Manual of Morphometry in Diagnostic Pathology. Heidelberg, Berlin, New York: Springer, 1983: 48, 517, 538, 545.
33. Aherne WA, Dunnill MS. Morphometry. London: Edward Arnold, 1982.
34. Kraemer H. Extension of the kappa coefficient. Biometrics 1980; 36; 207-216.
35. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics 1977; 33; 159-174.
36. Wulff HR. Pålideligheden af deskriptive data. Rationel klinik, grundlaget for diagnostiske og terapeutiske beslutninger. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1981; 48-54.
37. Silcocks P. Some issues in observer error studies in pathology. Editorial. J. Pathol. 1992; 168; 255-256.
38. Selkäinaho K. Statistics in stereology and morphometry. Stereology and Morphometry in Pathology. Kuopio: Kuopio University Press. 1984: p. 46.
39. Collan Y. General principles of grading lesions in diagnostic histopathology. Pathol. Res. Pract. 1989; 185; 539-543.
40. Collan Y, Pesonen E. Principles of morphometric grading. Gegenbaurs Morph Jahrbuch 1989; 135; 13-17.
41. Collan Y, Klemi P, Kallioniemi O, Joensuu H, Nordling S, Eskelinen M. Significance of variation in DNA flow cytometric analyses from paraffin-embedded breast cancers. Evaluation of the grading efficiency of ploidy determination, DNA index, and S-phase fraction. Pathol. Res. Pract. 1992; 88; 581-586.
42. Kujari HP, Collan YUI, Atkin NB. Use of mitotic counts for the prognosis and grading of breast cancer. Method evaluation study. Pathol. Res. Pract. 1994; 190; 593-599.
43. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i; 307-310.
44. McDevitt RW, Boyce W, Gersell D. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Clinical and pathological observations concerning 135 cases. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1982; 6; 401-411.
45. Ellis IO, Broughton N, Eiston CW, Blamey RW. The relationship of histological type to survival and oestrogen receptor status in primary operable breast carcinoma. J. Pathol. 1987; 152; 219A.
46. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer 1994; 73; 2765-2770.
47. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Human Pathol. 1995; 26; 873-879.
48. Delides GS, Garas G, Georgouli G et al. Intralaboratory variations in the grading of breast carcinoma. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 1982; 106; 126-128.
49. Kronqvist P, Montironi R, Kuopio T et al. Subjective breast cancer grading. Analyses of reproducibility after application of Bayesian Belief Networks. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 1997; 19; 423-429.
50. Kronqvist P, Kuopio T, Collan Y et al. The reproducibility of nuclear morphometric measurements in invasive breast carcinoma. Anal. Cell Pathol. 1997; 15; 47-59.
51. Collan Y, Kuopio T, Baak JPA et al. Standardized mitotic counts in breast cancer. Evaluation of the method. Pathol. Res. Pract. 1996; 192; 931-941.
52. Jannink I, Risberg B, Diest PJ et al. Heterogenity of mitotic activity in breast cancer. Histopathology 1996; 29; 421-428.
53. Jannink I, van Diest PJ, Baak JPA. Comparison of the prognostic value of four methods to assess mitotic activity in 186 invasive breast cancer patients: Classical and random mitotic activity assessment with correction for, percentage of epithelium. Human Pathol. 1995; 26; 1086-1092.
54. Donhuijsen K, Schmidt U, Hirsche H et al. Changes in mitotic rate and cell cycle fraction caused by delay in fixation. Human Pathol. 1990; 21; 709-714.
55. Diest PJ, Baak JPA, Matze-Cok P et al. Reproducibility of mitosis counting in 2,469 breast cancer specimens: results from a multicenter morphometric mammary carcinoma project. Human Pathol. 1992; 23; 603-607.
56. Stenkvist B, Westman-Naeser S, Vegelius J et al. Analysis of reproducibility of subjective grading systems of breast carcinoma. J. Clin. Pathol. 1979; 32; 979-983.
57. Fisher ER. Prognostic and therapeutic significance of pathological features of breast cancer. NCI Monogr. 1986; 1; 29-34.
58. Davies BW, Gelber D, Goldhirsch A et al. Prognostic significance of tumor grade in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis. Cancer 1986; 58; 2662-2670.
59. Parl FF, Dupont WD. A retrospective cohort study of histologice risk factors in breast cancer patients. Cancer 1982; 50; 2410-2416.