Reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Scarff-Bloom-Richardson histological grading system and the complementary value of Ki-67 to this system

Chinese Medical Journal

Volumn 123, Issue 15, 2010, Pages 1976-1982

  Zhang, Rui ^a   Chen, Hui Jiao ^a   Wei, Bing ^a   Zhang, Hong Ying ^a   Pang, Zong Guo ^a   Zhu, Hong ^b   Zhang, Zhang ^a   Fu, Jing ^a   Bu, Hong ^a  

^a SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SICHUAN PROVINCIAL PEOPLE'S HOSPITAL   (China)

Author keywords

Histological grading system; Invasive breast cancer; Ki 67; Prognosis; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; KI 67 ANTIGEN; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ACCURACY; ADJUVANT THERAPY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LABELING INDEX; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MITOSIS; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATHOLOGIST; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956103919     PISSN: 03666999     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2010.15.005     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. 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.
2. Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Sastre-Garau X, Bussolati G, Tavassoli FA, Eusebi V, et al. Invasive breast carcinoma. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, eds. World Health Organization Classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics. Tumors of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2003: 18-19.
3. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1319-1329.
4. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer 1994; 73: 2765-2770.
5. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, Dawkins H, Harvey J, Sterrett G, et al. Histological grading of breast caicinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 1995; 26: 873-879.
6. Frierson HF Jr, Wolber RA, Berean KW, Franquemont DW, Gaffey MJ, Boyd JC, 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.
7. Boiesen P, Bendahl PO, Anagnostaki L, Domanski H, Holm E, Idvall I, et al. Histologic grading in breast cancerreproducibility between seven pathologic departments. South Sweden Breast Cancer Group. Acta Oncol 2000; 39: 41-45.
8. Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, Olson N, Russo I, Russo J, et al. Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs. proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod pathol 2005; 18: 1067-1078.
9. Longacre TA, Ennis M, Quenneville LA, Bane AL, Bleiweiss IJ, Carter BA, et al. Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study. Mod Pathol 2006; 19: 195-207.
10. Dalton LW, Pinder SE, Elston CE, Ellis IO, Page DL, Dupont WD, et al. Histologic grading of breast cancer: linkage of patient outcome with level of pathologist agreement. Mod Pathol 2000; 13: 730-735.
11. Stuart-Harris R, Caldas C, Pinder SE, Pharoah P. Proliferation markers and survival in early breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 studies in 32,825 patients. Breast 2008; 17: 323-334.
12. de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr, Colozza M, Mano MS, Durbecq V, et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer; a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer 2007; 96: 1504-1513.
13. Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, Hayes MM, Gelmon KA. Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 174-183.
14. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 736-750.
15. NHS Breast Screening Programme: Guidelines for Pathology Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening and the Second Edition of The Royal College of Pathologists' Minimum Dataset for Breast Cancer Histopathology. Sheffield, United Kingdom: NHS; 2005: 74-80.
16. Ahlin C, Aaltonen K, Amini RM, Nevanlinna H, Fjällskog ML, Blomqvist C. Ki67 and cyclin A as prognostic factors in early breast cancer. What are the optimal cut-off values? Histopathology 2007; 51: 491-498.
17. Neri A, Marrelli D, Pedrazzani C, Caruso S, De Stefano A, Mariani F, et al. Prognostic relevance of proliferative activity evaluated by Mib-1 immunostaining in node negative breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34: 1299-1303.
18. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174.
19. Wiesner FG, Magener A, Fasching PA, Wesse J, Bani MR, Rauh C, et al. Ki-67 as a prognostic molecular marker in routine clinical use in breast cancer patients. Breast 2009; 18: 135-141.
20. Meyer JS, Cosatto E, Graf HP. Mitotic index of invasive breast carcinoma. Achieving clinically meaningful precision and evaluating tertial cutoffs. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 1826-1833.
21. Chowdhury N, Pai MR, Lobo FD, Kini H, Varghese R. Impact of an increase in grading categories and double reporting on the reliability of breast cancer grade. APMIS 2007; 115: 360-366.
22. Tambasco M, Magliocco AM. Relationship between tumor grade and computed architectural complexity in breast cancer specimens. Hum Pathol 2008; 39: 740-746.
23. Gwin K, Pinto M, Tavassoli FA. Complementary value of the Ki-67 proliferation index to the oncotype DX recurrence score. Int J Surg Pathol 2009; 17: 303-310.
24. Offersen BV, Sørensen FB, Knoop A, Overgaard J. The prognostic relevance of estimates of proliferative activity in early breast cancer. Histopathology 2003; 43: 573-582.
25. Klintman M, Bendahl PO, Grabau D, Lövgren K, Malmström P, Fernö M, et al. The prognostic value of Ki67 is dependent on estrogen receptor status and histological grade in premenopausal patients with node-negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2010; 23: 251-259.
26. Ruiz C, Seibt S, Al Kuraya K, Siraj AK, Mirlacher M, Schraml P, et al. Tissue microarrays for comparing molecular features with proliferation activity in breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2006; 118: 2190-2194.
27. Iqbal S, Anderson TJ, Marson LP, Prescott RJ, Dixon JM, Miller WR. MIB-1 assessments in breast cancers. Breast 2002; 11: 252-256.
28. Jung SY, Han W, Lee JW, Ko E, Kim E, Yu JH, et al. Ki-67 expression gives additional prognostic information on St. Gallen 2007 and Adjuvant! Online risk categories in early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 1112-1121.
29. Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, Harris A, Fox S, Smeds J, et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 262-272.
30. Tan PH, Bay BH, Yip G, Selvarajan S, Tan P, Wu J, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of Ki67 in breast cancer correlates with transcriptional regulation of genes related to apoptosis and cell death. Mod Pathol 2005;18: 374-381.
31. Perou CM, Jeffrey SS, van de Rijn M, Rees CA, Eisen MB, Ross DT, et al. Distinctive gene expression patterns in human mammary epithelial cells and breast cancers. Proc Natl Acad U S A 1999; 96: 9212-9217.
32. Tawfik O, Kimler BF, Davis M, Stasik C, Lai SM, Mayo MS, et al. Grading invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: advantages of using automated proliferation index instead of mitotic count. Virchows Arch 2007; 450: 627-636.