Literature DB >> 2006713

Prognosis and breast cancer. Recognition of lethal and favorable prognostic types.

D L Page1.   

Abstract

Assignment of breast cancer patients to specific prognostic groups has been a relatively empty exercise until the recent acceptance of the effectiveness of systemic chemotherapy. The previous question of who should be so treated has changed in North America to a question of who should not be so treated. The availability of intensive chemotherapy for the worst prognostic groups as well as efficacious, low-toxicity adjuvant chemotherapy has made prognostication mandatory. The current major question is which women with breast cancer will not benefit from chemotherapy. We are actually much better at prognostication than many studies and the current broad search for new prognostic markers would indicate. The assignment of excellent prognosis categories by defined special histologic types or grade of breast cancer as well as other measures recognize women with survival approaching or equaling the general population. Likewise, extremely poor prognosis may be recognized in 20% to 40% of women with breast cancer by the presence of extensive mitoses or high proliferation index (by any modality) and poor differentiation (highest grade). Combined tumor size and nodal status data with high-grade indicates that women with these indicators will die within 2 to 3 years with as high as 80% certainty. The surgical pathologist still determines if cancer is present and must also determine if the tumor is in situ or invasive, its type or grade if invasive, and the extent of in situ component. Considering the diminution in overall size of cancers detected by modern techniques, it is clear that validation of newer prognostic variables will be more useful and will allow more separate determinations if adapted to tissue sections rather than tissue homogenates. The many measures of these carcinomas, such as size and nodal status, make multiparametric assessment of putative prognostic markers mandatory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2006713     DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199104000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  33 in total

1.  Loss of E-cadherin expression associated with lymph node metastases in small breast carcinomas.

Authors:  N C Hunt; A G Douglas-Jones; B Jasani; J M Morgan; M Pignatelli
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Clinical significance of a pvrl 4 encoded gene Nectin-4 in metastasis and angiogenesis for tumor relapse.

Authors:  Chinmayee Sethy; Kunal Goutam; Deepika Nayak; Rajalaxmi Pradhan; Sefinew Molla; Subhajit Chatterjee; Niranjan Rout; Michael D Wyatt; Satya Narayan; Chanakya Nath Kundu
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 4.553

3.  Patients with positive axillary lymph nodes: how to use genomic assays.

Authors:  Ruta Rao
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2012-06

4.  Association of distant recurrence-free survival with algorithmically extracted MRI characteristics in breast cancer.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Ashirbani Saha; Michael R Harowicz; Elizabeth Hope Cain; Jeffrey R Marks; P Kelly Marcom
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Short-term significance of DNA ploidy and cell proliferation in breast carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of prognostic markers in a series of 308 patients.

Authors:  A E Pinto; S André; J Soares
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Prognostic factors in primary breast carcinoma.

Authors:  S E Pinder; I O Ellis; C W Elston
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Significance of angiogenesis and microvascular invasion in renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Yoram Dekel; Rumelia Koren; Valentina Kugel; Pinhas M Livne; Rivka Gal
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.201

8.  Prognostic significance of a formalin-resistant nuclear proliferation antigen in mammary carcinomas as determined by the monoclonal antibody Ki-S1.

Authors:  H Kreipe; P Alm; H Olsson; M Hauberg; L Fischer; R Parwaresch
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 4.307

9.  Genetic variation in SIPA1 in relation to breast cancer risk and survival after breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Mia M Gaudet; Kent Hunter; Paul Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Kristy Driver; Jolanta Lissowska; Mark Sherman; Beata Peplonska; Louise A Brinton; Stephen Chanock; Montserrat Garcia-Closas
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Assessment of Aggressiveness of Breast Cancer Using Simultaneous 18F-FDG-PET and DCE-MRI: Preliminary Observation.

Authors:  Nathaniel E Margolis; Linda Moy; Eric E Sigmund; Melanie Freed; Jason McKellop; Amy N Melsaether; Sungheon Gene Kim
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 7.794

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.