Intra‐patient variation between breast cancer axillary lymph node metastases using quantifiable features

Abstract

The intra-patient variations of some clinically relevant quantifiable features, between axillary lymph node metastases were evaluated in 44 breast cancer patients. In all lymph node metastases detected (range 2-33 per patient), the mitotic figures were counted, the volume percentage epithelium was assessed and the mean nuclear area was measured. The intra-patient variation for each quantifiable feature was expressed by the coefficient of variation (CV). Since the measurement techniques used introduce a certain, well known variation themselves because of sampling and measurement errors, the CVs found had to be greater than methodological tolerance limits (established in previous studies) to be interpreted as indicating biological variation. The CVs exceeded the methodological tolerance limits in 86% of the cases for the mitotic count, in 48% of the cases for the volume percentage epithelium, and in 47% of the cases for the mean nuclear area. This indicated that in these cases, the variation found in the quantifiable features could not be explained by sampling or measurement errors and should be regarded as real biological variation. Furthermore, the variation in the quantifiable features studied showed a significant positive correlation with the number of lymph node metastases. Thus, there may be considerable intra-patient variation in quantifiable features between axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer. This may indicate that these lymph node metastases originate independently from different clones within the primary tumour, that they are independently formed in different stages of tumour development, or that they, as an expression of intrinsic tumour heterogeneity, may develop in different directions from the start.

Tumor uptake of intravenously administered radiolabeled antibodies in ovarian carcinoma patients in relation to antigen expression and other tumor characteristics

“…However, it is not yet clear to what extent the VPE in one ovarian-carcinoma section is representative for the whole tumor or for different metastases in the same patient. In lymph nodes of breast-cancer patients, a clear variation was observed in VPE between different nodes in the same patients (Van Diest et al, 1992). The lack of correlation might also be explained by localization in stromal or necrotic areas of the tumor.…”

Clonal dominance detected in metastases but not primary tumors of retrovirally marked human breast carcinoma injected into nude mice

“…This intratumor heterogeneity is seen both at the phenotypic level (in studies of steroid receptors, tumor histopathology, and mitotic rate [27,28]) and the genotypic level (in studies of tumor ploidy, erb-B2 gene amplification, and allelic loss of heterozygosity [27,[29][30]). Such evidence as exists at the clinical level suggests that intratumor heterogeneity may increase rather than decrease with increasing primary tumor size [27].…”

Breast Disease in the 1990s: Patchwork Quilt and Growth Industry

“…7 ' 8 Heterogeneity also is demonstrated by many other techniques. 9 " 11 The paper by Raaf and co-workers may be part of the completion of a chapter begun in the 1980s on serum markers, particularly those related to transferrin. These authors demonstrate that the transferrin-receptor level is not altered with breast cancer.…”