Erratum: Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: Reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index (Modern Pathology (2005) 18 (1067-1078) DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3800388);Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: Reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index

Modern Pathology

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 1067-1078

  Meyer, John S ^a   Alvarez, Consuelo ^b   Milikowski, Clara ^b   Olson, Neal ^c   Russo, Irma ^d   Russo, Jose ^c   Glass, Andrew ^c   Zehnbauer, Barbara A ^e   Lister, Karen ^f   Parwaresch, Reza ^g  

^a ST LUKE S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^c KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^d FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f Forest Park Hospital   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bloom richardson; Breast neoplasms; Bromodeoxyuridine; Cell kinetics; Grade; Proliferation; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

BROXURIDINE; DEOXYRIBOSE; NUCLEIC ACID PRECURSOR; THYMIDINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTORADIOGRAPHY; BLOOM RICHARDSON SYSTEM; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INVASION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RELAPSE; CANCER SIZE; CELL PROLIFERATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LABELING INDEX; MITOSIS; NOTTINGHAM BLOOM RICHARDSON SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 24044552649     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3800479     Document Type: Erratum

References (63)

1. Greenough RB. Varying degrees of malignancy in cancer of the breast. J Cancer Res 1925;9:425-463.
2. Patey DH, Scarff RW. The position of histology in the prognosis of carcinoma of the breast. Lancet 1928;1:801-804.
3. Bloom HJG, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1957;11: 359-377.
4. 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.
5. Elston CW, Ellis IO. The Breast. Churchill-Livingstone: Edinburgh, 1998, pp 367-378.
6. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours: Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. IARC Press, International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, 2003, pp 18-19.
7. Davis BW, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor grade in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastases. Cancer 1986;58:2662-2670.
8. Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S, et al. 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;64:1914-1921.
9. Carriaga MT, Henson DE. The histologic grading of cancer. Cancer 1995;75:406-421.
10. Delides GS, Garas G, Georgouli G, et al. Intralaboratory variations in the grading of breast carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1982;106:126-128.
11. Stenkvist B, Bengtsson E, Eriksson O, et al. Histopathological systems of breast cancer classification: reproducibility and clinical significance. J Clin Pathol 1982;36:392-398.
12. Harvey JM, de Klerk NH, Sterrett KGF. Histological grading in breast cancer: interobserver agreement, and relation to other prognostic factors including ploidy. Pathology 1992;24:63-68.
13. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer 1994;73:2765-2770.
14. Frierson HF, 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.
15. Robbins P, Finder S, de Klerk N, et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 1995;26:873-879.
16. Raabe NK, Schistad O, Sauer T, et al. 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.
17. Lakhani SR, Jacquemier J, Sloane J, et al. Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancer and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1138-1145.
18. Sikka M, Agarwal S, Ghatia A. Interobserver agreement of the Nottingham histologic grading scheme of nuclear morphometric variables as prognostic predictors in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 1991;11: 1663-1669.
19. Boiesen P, Bendahl PO, Anagnostaki L, et al. Histologic grading in breast cancer-reproducibility between seven pathologic departments. Acta Oncol 2000;39: 41-45.
20. Glass AG, Donis-Keller H, Mies G, et al. The Cooperative Breast Cancer Tissue Resource: archival tissue for the investigation of tumor markers. Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:1843-1849.
21. Meyer JS. Cellular kinetics of breast cancer. In: Donegan WL, Spratt JS (eds). Cancer of the Breast, 5th edn. Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, 2002, pp 377-416.
22. Meyer JS, Province MA. S-phase fraction and nuclear size in long term prognosis of patients with breast cancer. Cancer 1994;74:2287-2299.
23. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1981, pp 212-236.
24. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53: 457-481.
25. El-Alfy M, Leblond CP. Long duration of mitosis and consequences for the cell cycle concept, as seen in the isthmal cells of the mouse pyloric antrum. I. Identification of early and late steps of mitosis. Cell Tissue Kinet 1987;20:205-213.
26. Page DL, Gray R, Allred DC, et al. Prediction of node-negative breast cancer outcome by histologic grading and S-phase analysis by flow cytometry. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study (2192). Am J Clin Oncol 2001;24:10-18.
27. Pari FF, Dupont WD. A retrospective cohort study of histologic risk factors in breast cancer patients. Cancer 1982;50:2410-2416.
28. Clayton F. Pathologic correlates of survival in 378 node-negative infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 1991;68:1309-1317.
29. Lee AKC, Loda M, Mackarem G, et al. Lymph node negative invasive breast carcinoma 1 centimeter or less in size (T1a,bN0M0). Clinicopathologic features and outcome. Cancer 1997;79:761-771.
30. Mandard AM, Denoux Y, Herlin P, et al. Prognostic value of DNA cytometry in 281 premenopausal patients with lymph node negative breast carcinoma randomized in a control trial: multivariate analysis with Ki-67 index, mitotic count, and microvessel density. Cancer 2000;89:1748-1757.
31. Volpi A, Bacci F, Paradiso A, et al. Prognostic relevance of histological grade and its components in node-negative breast cancer patients. Mod Pathol 2004;17:1038-1044.
32. Baak JPA, Van Dop H, Kurver PHJ, et al. The value of morphometry to classic prognosticators in breast cancer. Cancer 1985;56:374-382.
33. Rank F, Dombernowsky P, Jespersen NCB, et al. 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.
34. Russo J, Frederick J, Ownby HE, et al. Predictors of recurrence and survival of patients with breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1987;88:123-131.
35. Theissig F, Kunze KD, Haroske G, et al. Histological grading of breast cancer. Interobserver reproducibility and prognostic significance. Pathol Res Pract 1990;186:732-736.
36. Uyterlinde AM, Baak JPA, Schipper NW, et al. Further evaluation of the prognostic value of morphometric and flow cytometric parameters in breast-cancer patients with long follow-up. Int J Cancer 1990; 45:1-7.
37. Aaltomaa S, Lipponen P, Eskelinen ME, et al. The significance of nuclear morphometric variables as prognostic predictors in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 1991;11:1663-1669.
38. Eskelinen M, Lipponen P, Papinaho S, et al. DNA flow cytometry, nuclear morphometry, mitotic indices and steroid receptors as independent prognostic factors in female breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1992;51: 555-561.
39. Genestie C, Zafrani B, Asselain B, et al. Comparison of the prognostic value of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson and Nottingham histological grades in a series of 825 cases of breast cancer: major importance of the mitotic count as a component of both grading systems. Anticancer Res 1998;18:571-576.
40. Thor AD, Liu S, Moore DH, et al. Comparison of mitotic index, in vitro bromodeoxyuridine labeling, and MIB-1 assays to quantitate proliferation in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:470-477.
41. Lynch J, Pattekar R, Barnes DM, et al. Mitotic counts provide additional prognostic information in grade II mammary carcinoma. J Pathol 2002;196:275-279.
42. Clayton F, Hopkins CL. Pathologic correlates of prognosis in lymph-node-positive breast carcinomas. Cancer 1993;71:1780-1790.
43. Maehle BO, Skjaerven R. Prediction of prognosis in lymph node positive breast cancer patients: a statistical study. Br J Surg 1984;71:459-462.
44. Medri L, Volpi A, Nanni O, et al. Prognostic relevance of mitotic activity in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2003;16:1067-1075.
45. Rudolph PMG, MacGrogan G, Bonichon F, et al. Prognostic significance of Ki-67 and topoisomerase IIα expression in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. A multivariate analysis of 863 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999;55:61-71.
46. Rudolph P, Alm P, Heidebrecht H-J, et al. Immunologic proliferation marker Ki-S2 as prognostic indicator for lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:271-278.
47. Theissig F, Dimmer V, Haroske G, et al. Use of nuclear image cytometry, histopathological grading and DNA cytometry to make breast cancer prognosis more objective. Anal Cell Pathol 1991;3:351-360.
48. Meyer JS, Province MA. S-phase fraction and nuclear size in long term prognosis of patients with breast cancer. Cancer 1994;74:2287-2299.
49. Meyer JS, Bauer WC. Tritiated thymidine labeling index of benign and malignant human breast epithelium. J Surg Oncol 1976;8:165-181.
50. Meyer JS, McDivitt RW. Reliability and stability of the thymidine labeling index of breast carclinoma. Lab Invest 1986;54:160-164.
51. Meyer JS, Wittliff JL. Regional heterogeneity in breast carcinoma: thymidine labelling index, steroid hormone receptors, DNA ploidy. Int J Cancer 1991;47: 213-220.
52. Medri L, Volpi A, Nanni O, et al. Prognostic relevance of mitotic activity in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2003;16:1067-1075.
53. Lehr HA, Hansen DA, Kussick S, et al. Assessment of proliferative activity in breast cancer: MIB-1 immunohistochemistry versus mitotic figure count. Hum Pathol 1999;30:1314-1320.
54. Mendelsohn ML. Autoradiographic analysis of cell proliferation in spontaneous breast cancer of C3H mouse. III. Growth fraction. J Natl Cancer Inst 1962;28: 1015-1030.
55. Goodson III WH, More II DH, Ljung B-M, et al. The functional relationship between in vivo bromodeoxyuridine labeling index and and Ki-67 proliferation index in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;49:155-164.
56. Pinder SE, Wencyk P, Sibbering DM, et al. Assessment of the new proliferation marker MIB1 in breast carcinoma using image analysis: associations with other prognostic factors and survival. Br J Cancer 1995; 71:146-149.
57. Querzoli P, Albonico G, Ferretti S, et al. MiB-1 proliferative activity in invasive breast cancer measured by image analysis. J Clin Pathol 1996;49:868-869.
58. Brown RW, Allred DC, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic value of Ki-67 compared to S-phase fraction in axillary node-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 1996;2: 585-592.
59. Molino MA, Micciolo R, Turazza M, et al. Ki-67 immunostaining in 322 primary breast cancers: associations with clinical and pathological variables and prognosis. Int J Cancer 1997;74:433-437.
60. Trihia H, Murray S, Price K, et al. Ki-57 expression in breast carcinoma. Its association with grading systems, clinical parameters, and other prognostic factors-A surrogate marker? Cancer 2003;97: 1321-1331.
61. Franklin WA, Bibbo M, Doria MI, et al. Quantitation of estrogen receptor content and Ki-67 staining in breast carcinoma by the microTICAS image analysis system. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1987;9:279-283.
62. Garber K. Gene expression tests foretell breast cancer's future. Science 2004;303:1754-1755.
63. Paik S, Shak S, Tang F, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2817-2826.