Back to Basics: Traditional Nottingham Grade Mitotic Counts Alone are Significant in Predicting Survival in Invasive Breast Carcinoma

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue , 2015, Pages 509-515

  Chang, James M ^a   McCullough, Ann E ^a   Dueck, Amylou C ^a   Kosiorek, Heidi E ^a   Ocal, Idris T ^a   Lidner, Thomas K ^a   Gray, Richard J ^a   Wasif, Nabil ^a   Northfelt, Donald W ^a   Anderson, Karen S ^a,b   Pockaj, Barbara A ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; ERBB2 PROTEIN, HUMAN; TUMOR MARKER;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MITOSIS RATE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TUMOR VOLUME; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; MITOSIS; MORTALITY; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURVIVAL RATE; TUMOR INVASION; TUMOR RECURRENCE; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MITOSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECEPTOR, ERBB-2; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURVIVAL RATE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84952874925     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4616-y     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bloom HJ, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer. 1957;11:359–77.
2. 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;19:403–10.
3. Elston CW. The assessment of histological differentiation in breast cancer. Aust N Z J Surg. 1984;54:11–5.
4. Pereira H, Pinder SE, Sibbering DM, et al. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. IV: should you be a typer or a grader? A comparative study of two histological prognostic features in operable breast carcinoma. Histopathology. 1995;27:219–26.
5. Sundquist M, Thorstenson S, Brudin L, Nordenskjold B. Applying the Nottingham prognostic index to a Swedish breast cancer population. South East Swedish Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999;53:1–8.
6. Henson DE, Ries L, Freedman LS, Carriaga M. Relationship among outcome, stage of disease, and histologic grade for 22,616 cases of breast cancer. The basis for a prognostic index. Cancer. 1991;68:2142–9.
7. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3153–8.
8. Lundin J, Lundin M, Holli K, et al. Omission of histologic grading from clinical decision making may result in overuse of adjuvant therapies in breast cancer: results from a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:28–36.
9. Simpson JF, Gray R, Dressler LG, et al. Prognostic value of histologic grade and proliferative activity in axillary node-positive breast cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Companion Study, EST 4189. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2059–69.
10. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2003.
11. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:966–78.
12. Ellis I, Pinder S, Bobrow L, et al. Pathology reporting of breast disease. Sheffield, London: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes and The Royal College of Pathologists; 2005.
13. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3726–34.
14. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999–2009.
15. Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK, et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R25.
16. van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415:530–6.
17. Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, et al. Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:1067–78.
18. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer. 1994;73:2765–70.
19. Lakhani SR, Jacquemier J, Sloane JP, et al. Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1138–45.
20. van Diest PJ, van der Wall E, Baak JP. Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57:675–81.
21. Mirza AN, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, Singletary SE. Prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer: a review of studies with sample size more than 200 and follow-up more than 5 years. Ann Surg. 2002;235:10–26.
22. 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;89:1748–57.
23. 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;17:1038–44.
24. Thor AD, Liu S, Moore DH, 2nd, Edgerton SM. Comparison of mitotic index, in vitro bromodeoxyuridine labeling, and MIB-1 assays to quantitate proliferation in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:470–7.
25. Lynch J, Pattekar R, Barnes DM, Hanby AM, Camplejohn RS, Ryder K, Gillett CE. Mitotic counts provide additional prognostic information in grade II mammary carcinoma. J Pathol. 2002;196:275–9.
26. Medri L, Volpi A, Nanni O, et al. Prognostic relevance of mitotic activity in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:1067–75.
27. Baak JP, van Diest PJ, Voorhorst FJ, van der Wall E, Beex LV, Vermorken JB, Janssen EA. Prospective multicenter validation of the independent prognostic value of the mitotic activity index in lymph node-negative breast cancer patients younger than 55 years. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5993–6001.
28. Lende TH, Janssen EA, Gudlaugsson E, et al. In patients younger than age 55 years with lymph node-negative breast cancer, proliferation by mitotic activity index is prognostically superior to adjuvant! J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:852–8.
29. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–26.
30. Allison KH, Kandalaft PL, Sitlani CM, Dintzis SM, Gown AM. Routine pathologic parameters can predict Oncotype Dx recurrence scores in subsets of ER positive patients: who does not always need testing? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:413–24.
31. Mattes MD, Mann JM, Ashamalla H, Tejwani A. Routine histopathologic characteristics can predict Oncotype DX(TM) recurrence score in subsets of breast cancer patients. Cancer Invest. 2013;31:604–6.
32. Klein ME, Dabbs DJ, Shuai Y, Brufsky AM, Jankowitz R, Puhalla SL, Bhargava R. Prediction of the Oncotype Dx recurrence score: use of pathology-generated equations derived by linear regression analysis. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:658–64.
33. Auerbach J, Kim M, Fineberg S. Can features evaluated in the routine pathologic assessment of lymph node-negative estrogen receptor-positive stage I or II invasive breast cancer be used to predict the Oncotype Dx recurrence score? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:1697–701.
34. Zbytek B, Cohen C, Wang J, Page A, Williams DJ, Adams AL. Nottingham-defined mitotic score: comparison with visual and image cytometric phosphohistone H3 labeling indices and correlation with Oncotype Dx recurrence score. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2013;21:48–53.