Arnold M Schwartz1, Donald Earl Henson, Dechang Chen, Sivasankari Rajamarthandan. 1. From the Department of Pathology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC (Dr Schwartz); the Division of Cancer Control and Epidemiology, The George Washington University Medical Center Cancer Institute, Washington, DC (Dr Henson and Ms Rajamarthandan); and the Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland (Dr Chen).
Abstract
CONTEXT: The appropriate staging of breast cancers includes an evaluation of tumor size and nodal status. Histologic grade in breast cancer, though important and assessed for all tumors, is not integrated within tumor staging. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the histologic grade remains a prognostic factor for breast cancer regardless of tumor size and the number of involved axillary lymph nodes. DESIGN: By using a new clustering algorithm, the 10-year survival for every combination of T, N, and the histologic grade was determined for cases of breast cancer obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute. There were 36 combinations of TN, defined according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer, and grade. RESULTS: For each combination of T and N, a categorical increase in the histologic grade was associated with a progressive decrease in 10-year survival regardless of the number of involved axillary lymph nodes or size of the primary tumor. Absolute survival differences between high and low grade persisted despite larger tumor sizes and greater nodal involvement, though trends were apparent with increasing breast cancer stage. Statistical significance depended on the number of cases for each combination. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic grade continues to be of prognostic importance for overall survival despite tumor size and nodal status. Furthermore, these results seem to indicate that the assignment of the histologic grade has been consistent among pathologists when evaluated in a large data set of patients with breast cancer. The incorporation of histologic grade in TNM staging for breast cancer provides important prognostic information.
CONTEXT: The appropriate staging of breast cancers includes an evaluation of tumor size and nodal status. Histologic grade in breast cancer, though important and assessed for all tumors, is not integrated within tumor staging. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the histologic grade remains a prognostic factor for breast cancer regardless of tumor size and the number of involved axillary lymph nodes. DESIGN: By using a new clustering algorithm, the 10-year survival for every combination of T, N, and the histologic grade was determined for cases of breast cancer obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute. There were 36 combinations of TN, defined according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer, and grade. RESULTS: For each combination of T and N, a categorical increase in the histologic grade was associated with a progressive decrease in 10-year survival regardless of the number of involved axillary lymph nodes or size of the primary tumor. Absolute survival differences between high and low grade persisted despite larger tumor sizes and greater nodal involvement, though trends were apparent with increasing breast cancer stage. Statistical significance depended on the number of cases for each combination. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic grade continues to be of prognostic importance for overall survival despite tumor size and nodal status. Furthermore, these results seem to indicate that the assignment of the histologic grade has been consistent among pathologists when evaluated in a large data set of patients with breast cancer. The incorporation of histologic grade in TNM staging for breast cancer provides important prognostic information.
Authors: Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Christina A Clarke; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Kelly K Hunt; Sharon H Giordano Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-06-07
Authors: Allison Soucise; Caila Vaughn; Cheryl L Thompson; Amy E Millen; Jo L Freudenheim; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Amanda I Phipps; Lauren Hale; Lihong Qi; Heather M Ochs-Balcom Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kemba A Peters; Patrick O Roberts; Derria A Cornwall; Derek I Mitchell; Rory K Thompson Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Olga Kantor; Tari A King; Steven Shak; Christy A Russell; Armando E Giuliano; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Harold J Burstein; Eric P Winer; Tanujit Dey; Joseph A Sparano; Elizabeth A Mittendorf Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jennifer K Plichta; Yi Ren; Samantha M Thomas; Rachel A Greenup; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Laura H Rosenberger; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 13.787