Literature DB >> 11232942

Prediction of node-negative breast cancer outcome by histologic grading and S-phase analysis by flow cytometry: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study (2192).

D L Page1, R Gray, D C Allred, L G Dressler, A K Hatfield, S Martino, N J Robert, W C Wood.   

Abstract

Histologic evaluation and reporting of invasive breast cancer has effectively used Nottingham combined histologic grade (NCHG). This approach to predict outcome in invasive breast cancer has not been tested in multicenter cooperative trials. Histologic slides from selected breast cancer cases entered on node-negative Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trials were assigned grades. Two pathologists evaluated cases for NCHG defined from differentiation, mitotic index, and nuclear grade. The study population consisted of separate samples from low- and high-risk strata, where low risk was estrogen receptor positive with a tumor size of less than 3 cm and high risk was estrogen receptor negative or tumor size greater than or equal to 3 cm. The rate of agreement was generally good, with 80% of cases classified the same for mitotic count and 76% of the cases classified the same for combined grade. There were no cases disagreeing from the lowest to the highest of the three categories. The median follow-up is 11.6 years, but for analysis of survival, this was truncated at 5 years. Mitotic index and combined grade as assessed by both pathologists showed significant associations with survival. High combined histologic grade was predictive for response to cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil (CMF) with survival differences at 5 years of 30% in the treated high-grade patients over the untreated patients. Overall, it is clear that pathologists can have close agreement in assignment of combined histologic grades, with highly significant prediction in univariate and borderline significance in multivariate analysis in prognostication of time to recurrence as well as survival. Thus, stratification used in these trials was highly prognostic as hoped, leaving a role for histologic grading in these relatively large tumors, more powerful than S-phase analysis in this series. In the subgroups of high-risk patients randomized between CMF and observation, there was a suggestion that the high-combined-grade group was predictive of treatment efficacy. We conclude that a combined histologic grade with defined criteria may be reliably assigned by practiced pathologists using readily available criteria, and that the measure may be of use in prognostication and prediction of therapeutic responsiveness when done in a technically ideal fashion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11232942     DOI: 10.1097/00000421-200102000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0277-3732            Impact factor:   2.339


  14 in total

1.  Gene expression profiles of human breast cancer progression.

Authors:  Xiao-Jun Ma; Ranelle Salunga; J Todd Tuggle; Justin Gaudet; Edward Enright; Philip McQuary; Terry Payette; Maria Pistone; Kimberly Stecker; Brian M Zhang; Yi-Xiong Zhou; Heike Varnholt; Barbara Smith; Michelle Gadd; Erica Chatfield; Jessica Kessler; Thomas M Baer; Mark G Erlander; Dennis C Sgroi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  CARM1 is an important determinant of ERα-dependent breast cancer cell differentiation and proliferation in breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Mariam Al-Dhaheri; Jiacai Wu; Georgios P Skliris; Jun Li; Ken Higashimato; Yidan Wang; Kevin P White; Paul Lambert; Yuerong Zhu; Leigh Murphy; Wei Xu
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2011-01-31       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  Clinical and pathological predictors of the response to neoadjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  Mónica Fernández-Sánchez; Armando Gamboa-Dominguez; Norma Uribe; Ana Cristina García-Ulloa; Diana Flores-Estrada; Myrna Candelaria; Oscar Arrieta
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.064

4.  Breast cancer guidelines for Uganda (2nd Edition 2008).

Authors:  A Gakwaya; M Galukande; A Luwaga; J Jombwe; J Fualal; E Kiguli-Malwadde; P Baguma; A Kanyike; J B Kigula-Mugamba
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 0.927

Review 5.  Preinvasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Dennis C Sgroi
Journal:  Annu Rev Pathol       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 23.472

6.  Tumour size and vascular invasion predict distant metastasis in stage I breast cancer. Grade distinguishes early and late metastasis.

Authors:  P J Westenend; C J C Meurs; R A M Damhuis
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 7.  Centrosome amplification and the origin of chromosomal instability in breast cancer.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Salisbury; Antonino B D'Assoro; Wilma L Lingle
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.673

8.  Centrosome amplification drives chromosomal instability in breast tumor development.

Authors:  Wilma L Lingle; Susan L Barrett; Vivian C Negron; Antonino B D'Assoro; Kelly Boeneman; Wanguo Liu; Clark M Whitehead; Carol Reynolds; Jeffrey L Salisbury
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-02-05       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 9.  Laser capture microdissection and advanced molecular analysis of human breast cancer.

Authors:  Andrew P Fuller; Darryl Palmer-Toy; Mark G Erlander; Dennis C Sgroi
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.673

Review 10.  Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review.

Authors:  P J van Diest; E van der Wall; J P A Baak
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.