BACKGROUND: Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Factors were ranked according to previously established College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic import and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that had been extensively studied biologically and clinically, but whose import remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected about existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Factors ranked in category I included TNM staging information, histologic grade, histologic type, mitotic figure counts, and hormone receptor status. Category II factors included c-erbB-2 (Her2-neu), proliferation markers, lymphatic and vascular channel invasion, and p53. Factors in category III included DNA ploidy analysis, microvessel density, epidermal growth factor receptor, transforming growth factor-alpha, bcl-2, pS2, and cathepsin D. This report constitutes a detailed outline of the findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines as defined.
BACKGROUND: Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, pathologists, and statisticians considered prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer and stratified them into categories reflecting the strength of published evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Factors were ranked according to previously established College of American Pathologists categorical rankings: category I, factors proven to be of prognostic import and useful in clinical patient management; category II, factors that had been extensively studied biologically and clinically, but whose import remains to be validated in statistically robust studies; and category III, all other factors not sufficiently studied to demonstrate their prognostic value. Factors in categories I and II were considered with respect to variations in methods of analysis, interpretation of findings, reporting of data, and statistical evaluation. For each factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. Recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) increasing uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) enhancing the quality of data collected about existing prognostic factors, and (3) improving patient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Factors ranked in category I included TNM staging information, histologic grade, histologic type, mitotic figure counts, and hormone receptor status. Category II factors included c-erbB-2 (Her2-neu), proliferation markers, lymphatic and vascular channel invasion, and p53. Factors in category III included DNA ploidy analysis, microvessel density, epidermal growth factor receptor, transforming growth factor-alpha, bcl-2, pS2, and cathepsin D. This report constitutes a detailed outline of the findings and recommendations of the consensus conference group, organized according to structural guidelines as defined.
Authors: Kanwal P S Raghav; Leonel F Hernandez-Aya; Xiudong Lei; Marianan Chavez-Macgregor; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Thomas A Buchholz; Aysegul Sahin; Kim-Anh Do; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amanda L Kong; Welela Tereffe; Kelly K Hunt; Min Yi; Taewoo Kang; Kimberly Weatherspoon; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Isabelle Bedrosian; Rosa F Hwang; Gildy V Babiera; Thomas A Buchholz; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ilaria Muller; Lucy S Kilburn; Peter N Taylor; Peter J Barrett-Lee; Judith M Bliss; Paul Ellis; Marian E Ludgate; Colin M Dayan Journal: Eur Thyroid J Date: 2017-04-04
Authors: Paweł Surowiak; Piotr Dziegiel; Rafał Matkowski; Mirosław Sopel; Andrzej Wojnar; Jan Kornafel; Maciej Zabel Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2003-01-25 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Andrew J Creager; Kim R Geisinger; Nancy D Perrier; Perry Shen; Jo Ann Shaw; Peter R Young; Doug Case; Edward A Levine Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: E Fiore; E Giustarini; C Mammoli; F Fragomeni; D Campani; I Muller; A Pinchera; C Giani Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Karla V Ballman; Linda M McCall; Min Yi; Aysegul A Sahin; Isabelle Bedrosian; Nora Hansen; Sheryl Gabram; Thelma Hurd; Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 44.544