4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Head to head: do neuroendocrine tumours in the breast truly exist?

      1 , 2
      Histopathology
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The somatic mutation profiles of 2,433 breast cancers refines their genomic and transcriptomic landscapes

          The genomic landscape of breast cancer is complex, and inter- and intra-tumour heterogeneity are important challenges in treating the disease. In this study, we sequence 173 genes in 2,433 primary breast tumours that have copy number aberration (CNA), gene expression and long-term clinical follow-up data. We identify 40 mutation-driver (Mut-driver) genes, and determine associations between mutations, driver CNA profiles, clinical-pathological parameters and survival. We assess the clonal states of Mut-driver mutations, and estimate levels of intra-tumour heterogeneity using mutant-allele fractions. Associations between PIK3CA mutations and reduced survival are identified in three subgroups of ER-positive cancer (defined by amplification of 17q23, 11q13–14 or 8q24). High levels of intra-tumour heterogeneity are in general associated with a worse outcome, but highly aggressive tumours with 11q13–14 amplification have low levels of intra-tumour heterogeneity. These results emphasize the importance of genome-based stratification of breast cancer, and have important implications for designing therapeutic strategies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A common classification framework for neuroendocrine neoplasms: an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) expert consensus proposal

            The classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) differs between organ systems and currently causes considerable confusion. A uniform classification framework for NENs at any anatomical location may reduce inconsistencies and contradictions among the various systems currently in use. The classification suggested here is intended to allow pathologists and clinicians to manage their patients with NENs consistently, while acknowledging organ-specific differences in classification criteria, tumor biology, and prognostic factors. The classification suggested is based on a consensus conference held at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in November 2017 and subsequent discussion with additional experts. The key feature of the new classification is a distinction between differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), also designated carcinoid tumors in some systems, and poorly differentiated NECs, as they both share common expression of neuroendocrine markers. This dichotomous morphological subdivision into NETs and NECs is supported by genetic evidence at specific anatomic sites as well as clinical, epidemiologic, histologic, and prognostic differences. In many organ systems, NETs are graded as G1, G2, or G3 based on mitotic count and/or Ki-67 labeling index, and/or the presence of necrosis; NECs are considered high grade by definition. We believe this conceptual approach can form the basis for the next generation of NEN classifications and will allow more consistent taxonomy to understand how neoplasms from different organ systems inter-relate clinically and genetically.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma.

              The three strongest prognostic determinants in operable breast cancer used in routine clinical practice are lymph node (LN) stage, primary tumor size, and histologic grade. However, grade is not included in the recent revision of the TNM staging system of breast cancer as its value is questioned in certain settings. This study is based on a large and well-characterized consecutive series of operable breast cancer (2,219 cases), treated according to standard protocols in a single institution, with a long-term follow-up (median, 111 months) to assess the prognostic value of routine assessment of histologic grade using Nottingham histologic grading system. Histologic grade is strongly associated with both breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in the whole series as well as in different subgroups based on tumor size (pT1a, pT1b, pT1c, and pT2) and LN stages (pN0 and pN1 and pN2). Differences in survival were also noted between different individual grades (1, 2, and 3). Multivariate analyses showed that histologic grade is an independent predictor of both BCSS and DFS in operable breast cancer as a whole as well as in all studied subgroups. Histologic grade, as assessed by the Nottingham grading system, provides a strong predictor of outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer and should be incorporated in breast cancer staging systems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Histopathology
                Histopathology
                Wiley
                0309-0167
                1365-2559
                February 28 2022
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Department of Histopathology Nottingham City Hospital Nottingham UK
                [2 ]Division of Pathology Singapore General Hospital Singapore
                Article
                10.1111/his.14627
                35133666
                92568c6c-7205-4107-8667-aeb4487bc6ed
                © 2022

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article