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. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410 - Author commentary

Histopathology

Volumn 41, Issue 3 A, 2002, Pages 151-

  Elston, C W ^a   Ellis, I O ^a  

^a NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; HORMONE RECEPTOR;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PUBLICATION; RISK FACTOR; TUMOR VOLUME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; LONG TERM CARE; MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 0036432767     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2002.14691.x     Document Type: Note

References (17)

1. Haybittle JL, Blamey RW, Elston CW et al. A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 1982; 45; 361-366.
2. Elston CW, Gresham GA, Rao GS et al. The Cancer Research Campaign (Kings/Cambridge) trial for early breast cancer - Pathological aspects. Br. J. Cancer 1982; 45; 655-669.
3. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Assessment of histological grade. In Elston CW, Ellis IO eds. Systemic Pathology, The Breast. 3rd Edn. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1998; 365-384.
4. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma: A reproducibility study. Cancer 1994; 73; 2765-2770.
5. Frierson HF, Wolber RA, Berean KW et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histological grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1995; 105; 195-198.
6. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas. A study of interobserver agreement. Hum. Pathol. 1995; 26; 873-879.
7. Royal College of Pathologists Working Group on Cancer Services. Standard and miminum datasets for reporting common cancers. Minimum Dataset for Breast Cancer Histopathology reports. London: Royal College of Pathologists, 1998.
8. European Commission. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, 2nd Edn. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996.
9. Connolly JL, Fechner RE, Kempson RL et al. Recommendations for the reporting of breast carcinoma. Hum. Pathol. 1996; 27; 220-224.
10. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch. Pathol. Laboratory Med. 2000; 124; 966-978.
11. AJCC. TNM Staging Manual. 6th Edn. New York: Wiley, 2002.
12. UICC. Classification of malignant tumours. TNM Staging Manual. 6th Edn. New York: Wiley, 2002.
13. World Health Organization. International histological classification of tumours. Histologic Types of Breast Tumours. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002; in press.
14. Brown JM, Benson EA, Jones M. Confirmation of a long-term prognostic index in breast cancer. Breast 1993; 2; 144-147.
15. Balslev I, Axelsson CK, Zedelev K et al. The Nottingham prognostic index applied to 9,149 patients from the studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Br. Cancer Res. Treat. 1994; 32; 281-290.
16. Sundquist M, Thorstenson S, Brudin L et al. Applying the Nottingham prognostic index to a Swedish Breast Cancer population. Br. Cancer Res. Treat. 1999; 53; 1-8.
17. D'Eredita GD, Giardina C, Martellotta M et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer: The predictive value of the Nottingham prognostic index in patients with a long-term follow-up that were treated in a single institution. Eur. J. Cancer 2001; 37; 591-596.