Cancer du sein in situ

Cutuli, B.; Arnould́, Laurent; Barreau, B.; Bellocq, Jean‐Pierre; Bonnier, Pascal; Fignon, A; Fondrinier, É.; Lemanski, C.; Lesur, A.; Sigal‐Zafrani, Brigitte; Lara, C. Tunon de; Rousmans, Sophie; Bosquet, Lise; Mazeau-Woynar, V.

doi:10.1007/s10269-009-1850-6

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 2 highlights the features considered while classifying DCIS into one of the grades according to some guidelines in use, and it shows that these features are not fully identical (The aim of Fig. 2 is to give a visual impression; Supplementary Table 1 summarizes the wording for the interested [3][4][5][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]). Nuclear size criteria are included in many of these schemes, but as Fig.…”

Section: Dcis As a Precursor Of Invasive Carcinomasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nuclear grade 2 tiered (Cyto)nuclear grade 3 tiered WHO 2012 [6] Bethwaite [31] Agreement [39] Sneige [32] slight/missing (kappa 0-0.2) Sloane [33] fair (kappa 0.21-0.4 Sloane [33] moderate (kapa 0.41-0.6) Wells [34] substantial (kappa 0.61-0.8) Douglas-Jones [35] almost perfect (kappa >0.8) Gomes [36] empty cells Gomes [36] Schuh [37] van Bockstal [38] van Bockstal [38] Normal cells for comparative size [20] RBC RBC G1 [5,21,22,23,25 ] RBC/ductal epithelial cell nucleus G2 RBC/ductal epithelial cell nucleus G3 [3,4] RBC/ductal epithelial cell nucleus [24] No comparative size LORIS inclusion [18] Fig. 3 Comparative nuclear size described in some publications concerning the grading of DCIS.…”

Section: Further Inconsistenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Comparative nuclear size described in some publications concerning the grading of DCIS. RBC: red blood cell / erythrocyte [3-5, 18, 20-25] punctate, focal necrosis needs no reporting, whereas the 1997 Philadelphia Consensus Conference recommendation, and national guidelines following these recommendations recognize non-comedo type (punctate) necrosis, too, and recommend reporting it separately [21,23].…”

Section: Further Inconsistenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Grading Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast – What’s Wrong with It?

Sejben

2019

Pathol. Oncol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast is a non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer, and at its lower risk end might not need treatment, a hypothesis tested in several currently running randomized clinical trials. This review describes the heterogeneity of grading ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). First it considers differences between low and high grade DCIS, and then it looks at several grading schemes and highlights how different these are, not only in the features considered for defining a given grade but also in their wording of a given variable seen in the grade in question. Rather than being fully comprehensive, the review aims to illustrate the inconsistencies. Reproducibility studies on grading mostly suggestive of moderate agreement on DCIS differentiation are also illustrated. The need for a well structured, more uniform and widely accepted language for grading DCIS is urged to avoid misunderstanding based misclassifications and improper treatment selection.

show abstract

Section: Dcis As a Precursor Of Invasive Carcinomasmentioning

confidence: 99%