4.7 Article

Typical medullary breast carcinomas have a basal/myoepithelial phenotype

期刊

JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 207, 期 3, 页码 260-268

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/path.1845

关键词

breast cancer; medullary carcinoma; basal/myoepithelial differentiation; tissue microarrays; P-cadherin; Ki67; p53; ERBB2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Medullary breast cancer (MBC) is a rare, diagnostically difficult, pathological subtype. Despite being high grade, it has a good prognosis. MBC patients have an excess of BRCA1 germ-fine mutation and reliable identification of MBC could help to identify patients at risk of carrying germline BRCA1 mutations or in whom chemotherapy could be avoided. The aim of this study was therefore to improve diagnosis by establishing an MBC protein expression profile using immunohistochemistry (IHC) on tissue-microarrays (TMA). Using a series of 779 breast carcinomas ('EC' set), diagnosed initially as MBC, a double-reading session was carried out by several pathologists on all of the histological material to establish the diagnosis as firmly as possible using a 'medullary score'. Only MBCs with high scores, i.e. typical MBC (TMBC) (n = 44) and non-TMBC grade III with no or low scores (n = 160), were included in the IHC study. To validate the results obtained on this first set, a control series of TMBC (n = 17) and non-MBC grade III cases (n = 140) ('IPC' set) was studied. The expression of 18 proteins was studied in the 61 TMBCs and 300 grade III cases from the two sets. The global intra-observer concordance of the first reading for the diagnosis of TMBC was 94%, with almost perfect kappa (kappa) of 0.815. TMBC was characterized by a high degree of basal/myoepithelial differentiation. In multivariate analysis with logistic regression, TMBC was defined by the association of P-cadherin (R = 2.29), MIB1 > 50 (R = 3.80), ERBB2 negativity (R = 2.24) and p53 positivity (RR = 1.45). Copyright (c) 2005 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据