A proposal for a new and more practical grading scheme for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 724-733

  Adsay, N Volkan ^a   Basturk, Olca ^a   Bonnett, Michelle ^a   Kilinc, Nihal ^a   Andea, Aleodor A ^a   Feng, Jining ^a   Che, Mingxin ^a   Aulicino, Michael R ^b   Levi, Edi ^c   Cheng, Jeanette D ^d  

^a HARPER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b Huron Valley Sinai Hospital   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Grade; Pancreas; Survival

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DNA MICROARRAY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; JAPAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PANCREAS ADENOCARCINOMA; PANCREAS BIOPSY; PANCREAS DUCT; PANCREAS DUCT ADENOCARCINOMA; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ADULT; AGED; CARCINOMA, PANCREATIC DUCTAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 21144458769     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000163360.40357.f1     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Adsay V, Logani S, Sarkar F, et al. Foamy gland pattern of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a deceptively benign-appearing variant. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:493-504.
2. Amin MB, Grignon DJ, Humprey PA, et al. Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer: A Contemporary Approach. New York: Lipincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004.
3. Balani J, Shields A, Vaikevicius V, et al. Pathologic findings in post-neoadjuvant pancreatectomy specimen [Abstract]. Bone. 2001;14:192.
4. Barry M, Sinha SK, Leader MB, et al. Poor agreement in recognition of abnormal mitoses: requirement for standardized and robust definitions. Histopathohgy. 2001;38:68-72.
5. Bergers E, Jannink I, van Diest PI, et al. The influence of fixation delay on mitotic activity and flow cytometric cell cycle variables. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:95-100.
6. Cross SS, Start RD. Estimating mitotic activity in tumours. Histopathohgy. 1996;29:485-488.
7. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma: a reproducibility study. Cancer. 1994;73:2765-2770.
8. Ellis PS, Whitehead R. Mitosis counting: a need for reappraisal. Hum Pathol. 1981;12:3-4.
9. Former JG, Klimstra DS, Senie RT, et al. Tumor size is the primary prognosticator for pancreatic cancer after regional pancreatectomy. Ann Surg. 1996;223:147-153.
10. Frierson HF Jr, Wolber RA, Berean KW, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:195-198.
11. Geer RJ, Brennan MF. Prognostic indicators for survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg. 1993;165:68-72.
12. Giulianotti PC, Boggi U, Fornaciari G, et al. Prognostic value of histological grading in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Klöppel vs TNM grading. Int J Pancreatol. 1995;17:279-289.
13. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58-64.
14. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, 6th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
15. Han HJ, Yanagisawa A, Kato Y, et al. Genetic instability in pancreatic cancer and poorly differentiated type of gastric cancer. Cancer Res. 1993; 53:5087-5089.
16. Harada T, Okita K, Shiraishi K, et al. Interglandular cytogenetic heterogeneity detected by comparative genomic hybridization in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res. 2002;62:835-839.
17. Harvey JM, de Klerk NH, Sterrett GF. Histological grading in breast cancer: interobserver agreement, and relation to other prognostic factors including ploidy. Pathology. 1992;24:63-68.
18. Hruban RH, Adsay NV, Albores-Saavedra J, et al. Pancreatic intra-epithelial neoplasia: a new nomenclature and classification system for pancreatic duct lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:579-586.
19. Hruban RH, Takaori K, Klimstra DS, et al. An illustrated consensus on the classification of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:977-987.
20. Humprey PA. Prostate Pathology: Chicago: ASCP Press, 2003;353:360.
21. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54:8-29.
22. Klöppel G, Hruban RH, Longnecker DS, et al, eds. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Digestive System. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2000.
23. Klöppel G, Lingenthal G, von Bulow M, et al. Histological and fine structural features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas in relation to growth and prognosis: studies in xenografted tumours and clinicohistopathological correlation in a series of 75 cases. Histopathology. 1985; 9:841-856.
24. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, et al. Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998;48:6-29.
25. Longnecker D, Kato Y, Konishi Y, et al. Comparison of histologic type and stage of exocrine pancreatic neoplasms from surgical series in Europe, Japan and the United States. In: Beger HG, Buchler MW, Schoenberg MH, eds. Cancer of the Pancreas: Molecular Biology, Progress in Diagnosis and Treatment. Ulm: University of Ulm, 1996:47-54.
26. Lüttges J, Schemm S, Vogel I, et al. The grade of pancreatic ductal carcinoma is an independent prognostic factor and is superior to the immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation. J Pathol. 2000;191: 154-161.
27. Millikan KW, Deziel DJ, Silverstein JC, et al. Prognostic factors associated with resectable adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. Am Surg. 1999;65:618-623.
28. Molenaar WM, Plaat BE, Berends ER, et al. Observer reliability in assessment of mitotic activity and MIB-1-determined proliferation rate in pediatric sarcomas. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2000;4:228-235.
29. Rosai J. In: Rosai J, ed. Rosai and Ackerman's Surgical Pathology, 9th ed, vol. 1. London: Mosby, 2004:65.
30. Rosen PP. Rasens Breast Pathology. Philadelphia: Lipponcott-Raven, 2001;463-481.
31. Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Che M, et al. PSA and pathologic parameters of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens across the age spectrum of African American and Caucasian men: an analysis of 3049 biopsy and 1862 radical prostatectomies [Abstract]. J Urol. 2004;9:9-99.
32. Shoukri M, Edge V Statistical Methods for Health Sciences. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1996.
33. Silverberg SG. Reproducibility of the mitosis count in the histologic diagnosis of smooth muscle tumors of the uterus. Hum Pathol. 1976;7: 451-454.
34. Simpson JF, Dutt PL, Page DL. Expression of mitoses per thousand cells and cell density in breast carcinomas: a proposal. Hum Pathol. 1992;23: 608-611.
35. Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, et al. Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas-616 patients: results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg. 2000;4:567-579.
36. Takada T, Yasuda H. A search for prognostic factors in cancer of the pancreatic head: the significance of the DNA ploidy pattern. Surg Oncol. 1995;4:237-243.
37. Tham KT. Estimation of mitotic count in tumors. Hum Pathol. 1992;23: 1313-1314.
38. Thunnissen FB, Ambergen AW, Koss M, et al. Mitotic counting in surgical pathology: sampling bias, heterogeneity and statistical uncertainty. Histopathology. 2001;39:1-8.