The value of morphometry to classic prognosticators in breast cancer

In 271 breast cancer patients with adequate follow‐up for at least 5.5 and maximally 12 years, the value of morphometry to classic prognosticators of breast cancer (tumor size and axillary lymph node status) was assessed. Previous studies had indicated the value of this quantitative microscopic technique. Apart from quantitative microscopic features, subjective qualitative features such as nuclear and histologic grade were assessed as well. Univariate life‐table analysis showed the significance (p <0.001) of several features such as lymph node status, tumor size, nuclear and histologic grade, and several morphometric variables (mitotic activity index, mean and standard deviation of nuclear area). Cellularity index was also significant (p = 0.02). Survival analysis with Cox's regression model, using a stepwise selection as well as backwards elimination, pointed to three features: mitotic activity index, tumor size, and lymph node status. Mitotic activity was the most important prognostic feature, but the combination of these three features in a multivariate prognostic index had even more prognostic significance. Kaplan‐Meier curves showed that the 5‐year survival of lymph node‐negative patients (n = 146) is 85%, versus 93% in patients with a “good prognosis index” (n 150). For lymph nodepositive patients (n = 125), 5‐year survival was 55%, compared with 47% in the “high index” (poor prognosis) patients (n = 121). Logistic discriminant analysis with 5.5‐year follow‐up as a fixed endpoint (191 survivors and 80 nonsurvivors) essentially gave the same results. Application of two instead of one decision threshold (e.g., numerical classification probability 0.60 and 0.40) decreased the number of false‐negative and false‐positive outcomes, however, with a number of patients falling in the class “uncertain.” Thus, in agreement with other studies, morphometry significantly adds to the prognosis prediction of lymph node status and tumor size. Mitotic activity index is the best single predictor of the prognosis. An additional index advantage is that the multivariate model results in a continuous index variable that can be subdivided in many classes with an increasing risk of recurrence, so that more refined clinical therapeutic decision making is possible in individual patient care. The morphometric techniques are inexpensive and fairly simple and therefore can be applied in most pathology laboratories.

[1]  E. Weibel Stereological Methods. Practical methods for biological morphometry , 1979 .

[2]  C. Redmond,et al.  Histologic grading of breast cancer. , 1980, Pathology annual.

[3]  I. Henderson,et al.  Cancer of the breast: the past decade (second of two parts). , 1980, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  H. E. Christensen,et al.  Reliability of Histo‐Pathological Diagnosis of Squamous Epithelial Changes of The Uterine Cervix , 1978, Acta pathologica et microbiologica Scandinavica. Section A, Pathology.

[5]  G Eklund,et al.  Predicting breast cancer recurrence , 1982, Cancer.

[6]  R. Galen,et al.  Beyond Normality: The Predictive Value and E ciency of Medical Diagnoses , 1975 .

[7]  J. Baak,et al.  In search for the best qualitative microscopical or morphometrical predictor of oestrogen receptor in breast cancer. , 1984, Pathology, research and practice.

[8]  M. Boon,et al.  Prognostic indicators in breast cancer‐morphometric methods , 1982, Histopathology.

[9]  I. Lasnitzki,et al.  The Effect of Acridine Derivatives on Growth and Mitoses of Cells In Vitro , 1948, British Journal of Cancer.

[10]  Jan Oort,et al.  A Manual of Morphometry in Diagnostic Pathology , 1983 .

[11]  T. Caspersson,et al.  DNA content and survival in mammary carcinoma. , 1980, Analytical and quantitative cytology.

[12]  J. Baak,et al.  Discrimination of hyperplasia and carcinoma of the endometrium by quantitative microscopy–a feasibility study , 1981, Histopathology.

[13]  A. Zajdela,et al.  The relation of prognosis to the nuclear diameter of breast cancer cells obtained by cytologic aspiration. , 1979, Acta cytologica.

[14]  W. Hop,et al.  Prognostic scoring using cytomorphometry and lymph node status of patients with breast carcinoma. , 1984, European journal of cancer & clinical oncology.

[15]  J. Baak,et al.  Obtaining Quantitative Data , 1983 .

[16]  J. Kassirer,et al.  The threshold approach to clinical decision making. , 1980, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  R. Mulcahy,et al.  Letter: Primary prevention. , 1975, Lancet.

[18]  J. Baak,et al.  Quantitative, microscopical, computer‐aided diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma in individual patients , 1981, Histopathology.

[19]  H. Bloom,et al.  Histological Grading and Prognosis in Breast Cancer , 1957, British Journal of Cancer.

[20]  I. Henderson,et al.  Cancer of the breast: the past decade (first of two parts). , 1980, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  G. Bonadonna,et al.  Dose-response effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  G. Garas,et al.  Intralaboratory variations in the grading of breast carcinoma. , 1982, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[23]  S G Pauker,et al.  Pathology and probabilities: a new approach to interpreting and reporting biopsies. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  S. Behmard,et al.  DISCREPANCIES IN THE HISTOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF HYDATIDIFORM MOLE , 1979, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[25]  G Hung,et al.  Stereological methods. Vol. 1: Practical methods for biological morphometry By . Academic Press, New York/London, 1979. xvi + 415 pp., $57.50 , 1984 .

[26]  A. Patchefsky,et al.  Interobserver variation in the identification of breast carcinoma in intramammary lymphatics. , 1982, Human pathology.

[27]  J. Baak,et al.  Quantitation of borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours , 1981, Histopathology.

[28]  M. Oberholzer Morphometrie in der klinischen Pathologie , 1983 .

[29]  E. J. Gregory,et al.  Estrogen receptor as an independent prognostic factor for early recurrence in breast cancer. , 1977, Cancer research.

[30]  G. Murphy,et al.  Management and survival of female breast cancer: Results of a national survey by the American college of surgeons , 1980, Cancer.

[31]  R. Skjærven,et al.  Mean nuclear area and histological grade of axillary-node tumour in breast cancer, related to prognosis , 1982, British Journal of Cancer.

[32]  J. Lythgoe,et al.  MANCHESTER REGIONAL BREAST STUDY Preliminary Results , 1978, The Lancet.

[33]  J. Baak,et al.  Computation of preoperative diagnosis probability for follicular adenoma and carcinoma of the thyroid on aspiration smears. , 1982, Analytical and quantitative cytology.

[34]  H. Bloom Prognosis in Carcinoma of the Breast , 1950, British Journal of Cancer.

[35]  F. Sharkey,et al.  Morphometric analysis of differentiation in human breast carcinoma. Tumor grading. , 1983, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[36]  J. Vegelius,et al.  Analysis of reproducibility of subjective grading systems for breast carcinoma. , 1979, Journal of clinical pathology.

[37]  J. Baak,et al.  The relative prognostic significance of nucleolar morphometry in invasive ductal breast cancer , 1985, Histopathology.

[38]  R. Factor,et al.  Observer disagreement in the classification and histology of Hodgkin's disease. , 1970, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[39]  C. Redmond,et al.  The contribution of recent nsabp clinical trials of primary breast cancer therapy to an understanding of tumor biology—an overview of findings , 1980, Cancer.

[40]  L. Freedman,et al.  Histological grade and other prognostic factors in relation to survival of patients with breast cancer. , 1979, British Journal of Cancer.

[41]  Black Mm,et al.  Nuclear structure in cancer tissues. , 1957 .

[42]  J. Baak,et al.  Disagreement of histopathological diagnosis of different pathologists in ovarian tumors-with some theoretical considerations. , 1982, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[43]  H. Spector,et al.  Correlation of estrogen receptor levels with histology and cytomorphology in human mammary cancer. , 1979, American journal of clinical pathology.

[44]  P. Catrou,et al.  Nine-cell diagnostic decision matrix. A model of the diagnostic process; a framework for evaluating diagnostic protocols. , 1981, American journal of clinical pathology.

[45]  B. Ljung,et al.  Relationship between nuclear DNA distribution and estrogen receptors in human mammary carcinomas. , 1980, Analytical and quantitative cytology.

[46]  R. Hähnel,et al.  Prognostic value of estrogen receptors in primary breast cancer , 1979, Cancer.