Background. A concern with the histologic grading of breast cancer is that tumor grading is a subjective evaluation that may have problems with reproducibility. Methods. A single slide from 10 invasive breast cancers was submitted to 25 pathologists who practice in six separate groups. Pathologists graded the tumors using a modified Bloom‐Richardson (B‐R) scheme, and the results were compared. Results. In 8 of the 10 cases, there was greater than 87% agreement by the pathologists as to the final combined B‐R grade, with complete agreement in 2 cases. Only one case had any discrepant opinions that ranged from low to high grade, and this involved only 3 of the 25 pathologists. With respect to B‐R score, the pathologists tended to score the tumors as either one of two adjacent scores. Due to this clustering, the B‐R scheme appears reproducible into five groups: very low and very high grade tumors and B‐R score “5,6,” “6,7,” and “7,8” tumors. This clustering was especially noticeable in two cases with split decisions, in which the discrepancy in final combined grade was largely due to the tumors being given B‐R scores that straddled and were then condensed into two B‐R grades. A consensus from each pathology group tended to merge with the majority opinion of all 25 pathologists and was correct for outliers. Conclusions. This study indicates that reproducibility of grading breast cancers can be achieved when a histologic grading scheme with specified guidelines is used. Pathologists must be aware of the limits of reproducibility, with appropriate guidelines being followed to help optimize agreement, and there should be an awareness of how pathologists group in their evaluations. Also, it may be advisable to better correlate or link reproducibility data with prognostic data in the design of grading schemes. Cancer 1994; 73:2765–70.
In the histologic grading of invasive breast cancer with the Nottingham modification of the ScarffBloom-Richardson grading scheme (NSBR), it has been found that when pathologists disagree, they tend not to disagree by much. However, if tumor grade is to be used as an important parameter in making treatment decisions, then even this generally small degree of pathologist variability in assessing grade needs to be correlated with patient outcome.Findings from the Nottingham/Tenovus Primary Breast Cancer Study were used for patient outcome data. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for NSBR scores grouped according to the level at which pathologists tend to agree in assessing grade, from a reproducibility perspective. For example, if a given tumor were assessed by several pathologists as having either an NSBR score of 5 or 6, then what is the correct score-the intermediategrade Score 6 assessments or the low-grade Score 5 assessments? By "regrouping" the Nottingham outcome data such that data from patients with Score 5 tumors are grouped with patients having Score 6 tumors (a 5-6 group), then the level in which the pathologists agreed with each other (that the tumor was either score 5 or 6) is better matched with patient outcome.In response to the above example, it was not surprising to find that patients with Score 5-6 tumors had a probability of survival between the established low and intermediate NSBR final combined grades. However, it is the discussion of this approach that highlights that optimal use of grading requires awareness of the level of pathologist agreement and understanding the value of pathologists' reaching consensus in assessments. Also, knowledge of possible clinical decision thresholds can help in providing relevant interpretations of grading results.
Background. The increased prevalence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has produced a growing awareness of the importance of its diverse patterns. These differences in pattern have become clinically significant as predictive indicators of success for planned local excisions of small DCIS lesions. Methods. The authors reviewed 100 sequentially collected DCIS cases from a consultation practice. Recognizing the bias of such a series toward exclusion of easily recognizable comedo DCIS, the authors investigated the spectrum of mixed pattern lesions to identify variations and common features in the architectural arrangement of the various histologic patterns. Results. Patterns of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) with specific criteria of recognition were intermixed in 17 cases (11 cribriform, 1 solid, 1 micropapillary, 4 mixed). Thirty‐three cases of DCIS consisted of mixed patterns of comedo and noncomedo types. No case of comedo DCIS with associated areas of ADH was identified. In all cases of combined DCIS and ADH, the more advanced patterns of DCIS were present in the central portion of the lesion, with the ADH components arranged peripherally. This tendency for the more severely atypical areas to be located centrally was present throughout the study. Conclusions. Different patterns of DCIS are frequently present within individual lesions (46 of 100), and the more advanced features of architectural atypia are regularly present centrally. This strongly supports the hypothesis that these lesions develop from a central focus and expand peripherally. Also, those lesions with low‐grade DCIS at the periphery may be as amenable to local excision for cure as purely low‐grade lesions.
Background Hypertrophy of the nucleolus is a distinctive cytological feature of malignant cells and corresponds to aggressive behaviour. This study aimed to identify the key gene associated with nucleolar prominence (NP) in breast cancer (BC) and determine its prognostic significance. Methods From The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort, digital whole slide images identified cancers having NP served as label and an information theory algorithm was applied to find which mRNA gene best explained NP. Dyskerin Pseudouridine Synthase 1 (DKC1) was identified. DKC1 expression was assessed using mRNA data of Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC, n = 1980) and TCGA (n = 855). DKC1 protein expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry in Nottingham BC cohort (n = 943). Results Nuclear and nucleolar expressions of DKC1 protein were significantly associated with higher tumour grade (p < 0.0001), high nucleolar score (p < 0.001) and poor Nottingham Prognostic Index (p < 0.0001). High DKC1 expression was associated with shorter BC-specific survival (BCSS). In multivariate analysis, DKC1 mRNA and protein expressions were independent risk factors for BCSS (p < 0.01). Conclusion DKC1 expression is strongly correlated with NP and its overexpression in BC is associated with unfavourable clinicopathological characteristics and poor outcome. This has been a detailed example in the correlation of phenotype with genotype.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.