Literature DB >> 23041831

Mitotic figure counts are significantly overestimated in resection specimens of invasive breast carcinomas.

Hans-Anton Lehr1, Candice Rochat, Cornelia Schaper, Antoine Nobile, Sherien Shanouda, Sandrine Vijgen, Arnaud Gauthier, Ellen Obermann, Susana Leuba, Marcus Schmidt, Curzio Ruegg C, Jean-Francois Delaloye, Nectaria Simiantonaki, Stephan C Schaefer.   

Abstract

Several authors have demonstrated an increased number of mitotic figures in breast cancer resection specimen when compared with biopsy material. This has been ascribed to a sampling artifact where biopsies are (i) either too small to allow formal mitotic figure counting or (ii) not necessarily taken form the proliferating tumor periphery. Herein, we propose a different explanation for this phenomenon. Biopsy and resection material of 52 invasive ductal carcinomas was studied. We counted mitotic figures in 10 representative high power fields and quantified MIB-1 immunohistochemistry by visual estimation, counting and image analysis. We found that mitotic figures were elevated by more than three-fold on average in resection specimen over biopsy material from the same tumors (20±6 vs 6±2 mitoses per 10 high power fields, P=0.008), and that this resulted in a relative diminution of post-metaphase figures (anaphase/telophase), which made up 7% of all mitotic figures in biopsies but only 3% in resection specimen (P<0.005). At the same time, the percentages of MIB-1 immunostained tumor cells among total tumor cells were comparable in biopsy and resection material, irrespective of the mode of MIB-1 quantification. Finally, we found no association between the size of the biopsy material and the relative increase of mitotic figures in resection specimen. We propose that the increase in mitotic figures in resection specimen and the significant shift towards metaphase figures is not due to a sampling artifact, but reflects ongoing cell cycle activity in the resected tumor tissue due to fixation delay. The dwindling energy supply will eventually arrest tumor cells in metaphase, where they are readily identified by the diagnostic pathologist. Taken together, we suggest that the rapidly fixed biopsy material better represents true tumor biology and should be privileged as predictive marker of putative response to cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23041831     DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  6 in total

Review 1.  Malignant Leydig cell tumor in dogs: two cases and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Tomoo Kudo; Junichi Kamiie; Naoyuki Aihara; Masaki Doi; Ayumi Sumi; Tetsuo Omachi; Kinji Shirota
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 1.279

2.  A high-resolution transcriptome map of cell cycle reveals novel connections between periodic genes and cancer.

Authors:  Daniel Dominguez; Yi-Hsuan Tsai; Nicholas Gomez; Deepak Kumar Jha; Ian Davis; Zefeng Wang
Journal:  Cell Res       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 25.617

3.  Evaluation of Ki67 expression across distinct categories of breast cancer specimens: a population-based study of matched surgical specimens, core needle biopsies and tissue microarrays.

Authors:  Gøril Knutsvik; Ingunn M Stefansson; Sura Aziz; Jarle Arnes; Johan Eide; Karin Collett; Lars A Akslen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Pathological non-response to chemotherapy in a neoadjuvant setting of breast cancer: an inter-institutional study.

Authors:  D Balmativola; C Marchiò; M Maule; L Chiusa; L Annaratone; F Maletta; F Montemurro; J Kulka; P Figueiredo; Z Varga; I Liepniece-Karele; G Cserni; E Arkoumani; I Amendoeira; G Callagy; A Reiner-Concin; A Cordoba; S Bianchi; T Decker; D Gläser; C Focke; P van Diest; D Grabau; E Lips; J Wesseling; R Arisio; E Medico; C Wells; A Sapino
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Temporal and spatial topography of cell proliferation in cancer.

Authors:  Giorgio Gaglia; Sheheryar Kabraji; Danae Rammos; Yang Dai; Ana Verma; Shu Wang; Caitlin E Mills; Mirra Chung; Johann S Bergholz; Shannon Coy; Jia-Ren Lin; Rinath Jeselsohn; Otto Metzger; Eric P Winer; Deborah A Dillon; Jean J Zhao; Peter K Sorger; Sandro Santagata
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 28.213

Review 6.  Counting mitoses: SI(ze) matters!

Authors:  Ian A Cree; Puay Hoon Tan; William D Travis; Pieter Wesseling; Yukako Yagi; Valerie A White; Dilani Lokuhetty; Richard A Scolyer
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 7.842

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.