Relevant impact of central pathology review on nodal classification in individual breast cancer patients

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 2561-2566

  Vestjens, J H M J ^a   Pepels, M J ^a   De Boer, M ^a   Borm, G F ^b   Van Deurzen, C H M ^c   Van Diest, P J ^c   Van Dijck, J A A M ^b   Adang, E M M ^b   Nortier, J W R ^d   Rutgers, E J Th ^e   Seynaeve, C ^f   Menke Pluymers, M B E ^f   Bult, P ^b   Tjan Heijnen, V C G ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^f ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Pathology review; Sentinel node

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PATIENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATHOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURVIVAL TIME; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; TUMOR VOLUME;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 84867120388     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds072     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Bolster MJ, Bult P, Wauters CAP et al. More tumor-affected lymph nodes because of the sentinel node procedure but no stage migration, because the 2002 TNM classifies small tumor deposits as pathologic N0 breast cancer. Cancer 2009; 115: 5589-5595.
2. de Boer M, van Deurzen CHM, van Dijck JAAM et al. Micrometastases or isolated tumor cells and the outcome of breast cancer. NEJM 2009; 361: 653-663.
3. Green FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 2002 6th editionChicago, IL: American Joint Commission on Cancer.
4. Roberts CA, Beitsch PD, Litz CE et al. Interpretive disparity among pathologists in breast sentinel lymph node evaluation. Am J Surg 2003; 186: 324-329.
5. Cserni G, Bianchi S, Boecker W et al. Improving the reproducibility of diagnosing micrometastases and isolated tumor cells. Cancer 2005; 103: 358-367.
6. Turner RF, Weaver DL, Cserni G et al. Nodal stage classification for breast carcinoma: improving interobserver reproducibility through standardized histologic criteria and image-based training. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 258-263.
7. Van Deurzen CH, Cserni G, Bianchi S et al. Nodal-stage classification in invasive lobular breast carcinoma: influence of different interpretations of the pTNM classification. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 999-1004.
8. Cserni G, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V et al. Variations in sentinel node isolated tumour cells/micrometastasis and non-sentinel node involvement rates according to different interpretations of the TNM definitions. Eur J Cancer 2008; 244: 2185-2191.
9. Cserni G, Amendoeira I, Bianchi S et al. Distinction of isolated tumour cells and micrometastasis in lymph nodes of breast cancer patients according to the new tumour node metastasis (TNM) definitions. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 887-894.
10. De Mascarel I, MacGrogan G, Debeld M et al. Distinction between isolated tumor cells and micrometastases in breast cancer. Is it reliable and useful? Cancer 2008; 112: 1672-1678.
11. Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon-stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 1604-1608.
12. Pepels MJ, de Boer M, Bult P et al. Regional recurrence in breast cancer patients with sentinel node micrometastases and isolated tumor cells. Ann Surg 2012; 255: 116-121.
13. Weaver DL, Ashikaga T, Krag DN et al. Effect of occult metastases on survival in node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 412-421.