4.5 Article

Mitotic counts in breast cancer after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy and development of metastatic disease

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 138, 期 1, 页码 91-97

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2411-7

关键词

Breast cancer; Neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy; Mitotic counts; Residual cancer burden

类别

资金

  1. Department of Health and Human Services
  2. National Institutes of Health [P30 11130]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (NST) is associated with an excellent prognosis, the prognosis for patients with residual disease is variable. The mitotic count (MC) is commonly used in the evaluation of histologic tumor grade, but its prognostic value relative to other factors when determined after NST has not been studied. We evaluated MC in the residual tumor after NST in order to determine whether it provided prognostic information independent of other factors, including the residual cancer burden (RCB). We retrospectively reviewed pathologic specimens from 80 patients with localized breast cancer who received standard NST, of whom 61 had residual disease evaluable for MC analysis and RCB score. The exact number of mitotic figures was counted in 10 high power (40x) fields (hpf). We classified tumors as having high (a parts per thousand yen13 per 10 hpf) and low (< 13 per 10 hpf) MC because this threshold fell at the midpoint for an intermediate MC score in the Nottingham combined histologic grade. Distant metastases developed in 2 of 32 (6.3 %) patients with a low MC compared with 18 of 29 (62.1 %) with a high MC (log-rank test, p < 0.001). When adjusted for other covariates, including age, estrogen receptor, HER2/neu expressions, and RCB score, a high MC was associated with a significantly higher risk of developing distant metastases (hazard ratio 11.21, 95 % CI [2.19, 57.37]; p = 0.004). Our findings indicated that evaluation of MC after NST warrants validation and further evaluation as a prognostic marker in breast cancer.

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

4.5
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