BACKGROUND: In breast cancer, nuclear volume estimates can be expected to be better prognosticators than nuclear profile areas because biological variation is wider in volume estimates than in area measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 191 invasive breast cancer samples were available for nuclear volume measurements. To estimate the volume weighted mean nuclear volume, point-sampled linear intercepts were used on micrographs. The nuclear profile area was measured from 148 cases matching volume measurements and run by the Prodit morphometry program. Measurements were compared as prognosticators after a follow-up of 5 years. A computerized method on a randomly selected large number of nuclei was also applied in 17 cases. Bcl-2 immunostaining was compared with nuclear measurements. RESULTS: The correlation of volume and area measurements was statistically significant, but the correlation coefficients were low. The nuclear area showed a significant difference in survival at the 75 percentile cut-point but the volume-weighted mean nuclear volume did not allow distinction of different prognostic groups. Computerized volume measurements based on a large number of nuclei and measurements based on the simpler method did not show statistically significant correlation. Bcl-2 staining did not show any correlation with volume or area measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Although the prognostic value of nuclear area was shown in our study, the volume-weighted mean nuclear volume did not show prognostic significance. Improvement of the methodology which could decrease method variation and increase reproducibility of measurements is urgent for verification of the prognostic value of nuclear volume measurements. Bcl-2 immunostaining and nuclear area measurements were independent prognostic variables.
BACKGROUND: In breast cancer, nuclear volume estimates can be expected to be better prognosticators than nuclear profile areas because biological variation is wider in volume estimates than in area measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 191 invasive breast cancer samples were available for nuclear volume measurements. To estimate the volume weighted mean nuclear volume, point-sampled linear intercepts were used on micrographs. The nuclear profile area was measured from 148 cases matching volume measurements and run by the Prodit morphometry program. Measurements were compared as prognosticators after a follow-up of 5 years. A computerized method on a randomly selected large number of nuclei was also applied in 17 cases. Bcl-2 immunostaining was compared with nuclear measurements. RESULTS: The correlation of volume and area measurements was statistically significant, but the correlation coefficients were low. The nuclear area showed a significant difference in survival at the 75 percentile cut-point but the volume-weighted mean nuclear volume did not allow distinction of different prognostic groups. Computerized volume measurements based on a large number of nuclei and measurements based on the simpler method did not show statistically significant correlation. Bcl-2 staining did not show any correlation with volume or area measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Although the prognostic value of nuclear area was shown in our study, the volume-weighted mean nuclear volume did not show prognostic significance. Improvement of the methodology which could decrease method variation and increase reproducibility of measurements is urgent for verification of the prognostic value of nuclear volume measurements. Bcl-2 immunostaining and nuclear area measurements were independent prognostic variables.