Breast cancer grading - Revision history

Michael: /* See also */

2016-11-30T02:44:07Z

Michael: /* Note about mitosis counting */

2016-11-30T02:43:43Z

Note about mitosis counting

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, 30 November 2016
Line 31:		Line 31:
	***Calculation: 1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup> (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV.		***Calculation: 1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup> (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV.

	*'''~~RANT~~''': Sampling 10 fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm<sup>2</sup>, is ''not'' the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm<sup>2</sup>. It ~~surpring~~ that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do ''not'' standardize the sampling area.		'''STATISTICAL NOTE''':
			Sampling 10 high power fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm<sup>2</sup>, is ''not'' the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm<sup>2</sup>. It surprising that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do ''not'' standardize the sampling area.

	==Calculating Nottingham score==		==Calculating Nottingham score==

Michael: /* Nottingham system */ fix refs

2016-11-30T02:40:01Z

Nottingham system: fix refs

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 30 November 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:

	Notes:		Notes:
	*Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.<ref name=~~pmid12405945~~>{{cite journal \|author=Elston CW, Ellis IO \|title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up~~. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410~~ \|journal=Histopathology \|volume=41 \|issue=3A \|pages=~~151–2, discussion 152–3~~ \|year=~~2002~~ \|month=~~September~~ \|pmid=~~12405945~~ \|doi= \|url=}}</ref> They also wrote a follow-up article in 2002.<ref name=~~pmid1757079~~>{{cite journal \|author=Elston CW, Ellis IO \|title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up \|journal=Histopathology \|volume=19 \|issue=5 \|pages=~~403–10~~ \|year=~~1991~~ \|month=~~November~~ \|pmid=~~1757079~~ \|doi= \|url=}}</ref>		*Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.<ref name=pmid1757079>{{cite journal \|author=Elston CW, Ellis IO \|title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up \|journal=Histopathology \|volume=19 \|issue=5 \|pages=403–10 \|year=1991 \|month=November \|pmid=1757079 \|doi= \|url=}}</ref> They also wrote a follow-up article in 2002.<ref name=pmid12405945>{{cite journal \|author=Elston CW, Ellis IO \|title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410 \|journal=Histopathology \|volume=41 \|issue=3A \|pages=151–2, discussion 152–3 \|year=2002 \|month=September \|pmid=12405945 \|doi= \|url=}}</ref>

	===Note about mitosis counting===		===Note about mitosis counting===

Michael at 13:23, 21 April 2016

2016-04-21T13:23:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 21 April 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The most common is the ''Nottingham system'', also known as ''Scarff-Bloom-Richardson''.		The most common is the ''Nottingham system'', also known as ''Scarff-Bloom-Richardson''.

	''Nottingham grade'' ~~redirects~~ here.		''Nottingham grade'' and ''Nottingham score'' redirect here.

	==Nottingham system==		==Nottingham system==

Michael at 13:22, 21 April 2016

2016-04-21T13:22:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 21 April 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:

	The most common is the ''Nottingham system'', also known as ''Scarff-Bloom-Richardson''.		The most common is the ''Nottingham system'', also known as ''Scarff-Bloom-Richardson''.

			''Nottingham grade'' redirects here.

	==Nottingham system==		==Nottingham system==

Michael: /* Nottingham system */

2016-03-10T22:48:46Z

Nottingham system

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 10 March 2016
Line 14:		Line 14:
	#*Minimal <10% = 3.		#*Minimal <10% = 3.
	# Mitotic rate.		# Mitotic rate.
	#0-5 mitosis/10 [[HPF]] (1.52 mm^2 --or-- 0.0152 mm^2 10) = 1.		#0-5 mitosis/10 [[HPF]] (1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> --or-- 0.0152 mm<sup>2</sup> 10) = 1.
	#*6-10 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm^2) = 2.		#*6-10 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm<sup>2</sup>) = 2.
	#*>11 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm^2) = 3.		#*>11 mitosis/10 HPF (1.52 mm<sup>2</sup>) = 3.
	Mnemonic: ''TMN'' = tubule formation, mitotic rate, nuclear grade.		Mnemonic: ''TMN'' = tubule formation, mitotic rate, nuclear grade.

Michael: /* Note about mitosis counting */

2016-03-10T22:48:14Z

Note about mitosis counting

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 10 March 2016
Line 29:		Line 29:
	***Calculation: 1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup> (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV.		***Calculation: 1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup> (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV.

	*'''RANT''': Sampling 10 fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm<sup>2</sup>, is ''not'' the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm^2. It surpring that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do ''not'' standardize the sampling area.		*'''RANT''': Sampling 10 fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm<sup>2</sup>, is ''not'' the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm<sup>2</sup>. It surpring that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do ''not'' standardize the sampling area.

	==Calculating Nottingham score==		==Calculating Nottingham score==

Michael: /* Note about mitosis counting */

2016-03-10T22:48:00Z

Note about mitosis counting

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 10 March 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:
	*Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.<ref name=pmid12405945>{{cite journal \|author=Elston CW, Ellis IO \|title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410 \|journal=Histopathology \|volume=41 \|issue=3A \|pages=151–2, discussion 152–3 \|year=2002 \|month=September \|pmid=12405945 \|doi= \|url=}}</ref> They also wrote a follow-up article in 2002.<ref name=pmid1757079>{{cite journal \|author=Elston CW, Ellis IO \|title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up \|journal=Histopathology \|volume=19 \|issue=5 \|pages=403–10 \|year=1991 \|month=November \|pmid=1757079 \|doi= \|url=}}</ref>		*Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.<ref name=pmid12405945>{{cite journal \|author=Elston CW, Ellis IO \|title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410 \|journal=Histopathology \|volume=41 \|issue=3A \|pages=151–2, discussion 152–3 \|year=2002 \|month=September \|pmid=12405945 \|doi= \|url=}}</ref> They also wrote a follow-up article in 2002.<ref name=pmid1757079>{{cite journal \|author=Elston CW, Ellis IO \|title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up \|journal=Histopathology \|volume=19 \|issue=5 \|pages=403–10 \|year=1991 \|month=November \|pmid=1757079 \|doi= \|url=}}</ref>

	==Note about mitosis counting==		===Note about mitosis counting===
	*One ~~MUST~~ adjust for the size of the field of view.		*One really ought to adjust for the size of the field of view.

	Most of ~~the Resident scopes~~ have an eye piece diameter of 22 mm. Therefore, the field diameter at ~~40 X~~ is approximately 22 mm / ~~40 X~~ ~= 0.55 mm and the field of view is pi/4(0.55 mm)^2 = 0.2376 mm^2.		Most of modern microscopes have an eye piece diameter of 22 mm. Therefore, the field diameter at 40x is approximately 22 mm / 40x ~= 0.55 mm and the field of view is pi/4(0.55 mm)<sup>2</sup> = 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup>.
	**Thus, on a ~~resident scope~~ (with a FOV of 0.2376 mm^2) one should sample 6 or 7 fields of view (FsOV).		**Thus, on a typical modern microscope (with a FOV of 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup>) one should sample 6 or 7 fields of view (FsOV).
	***Calculation: 1.52 mm^2 (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm^2 (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV.		***Calculation: 1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup> (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV.

	*'''RANT''': Sampling 10 fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm^2, is ''not'' the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm^2. It ~~surprises me~~ that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do ''not'' standardize the sampling area.		*'''RANT''': Sampling 10 fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm<sup>2</sup>, is ''not'' the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm^2. It surpring that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do ''not'' standardize the sampling area.

	==Calculating Nottingham score==		==Calculating Nottingham score==

Michael: /* Calculating Nottingham score */

2016-03-10T21:29:08Z

Calculating Nottingham score

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 10 March 2016
Line 37:		Line 37:

	Notes:		Notes:
	*~~I've found most~~ tumours are grade II.		*Most tumours are grade II.
	*The mitotic score is ~~usually~~ 1/3.		*The mitotic score is most often 1/3.
	*The nuclear score is rarely 1/3 -- even in the tubular subtype.<ref>MUA. 20 January 2009.</ref>		*The nuclear score is rarely 1/3 -- even in the tubular subtype.<ref>MUA. 20 January 2009.</ref>

Michael: /* See also */

2016-03-10T21:26:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:44, 30 November 2016
Line 47:		Line 47:
	*[[Invasive breast cancer]].		*[[Invasive breast cancer]].
	*[[Breast cancer staging]].		*[[Breast cancer staging]].
			*[[HPFitis]].

	==References==		==References==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, 10 March 2016
Line 43:		Line 43:
	==See also==		==See also==
	*[[Invasive breast cancer]].		*[[Invasive breast cancer]].
			*[[Breast cancer staging]].

	==References==		==References==