Objective malignancy grading: A review emphasizing unbiased stereology applied to breast tumors
1998; Wiley; Volume: 106; Issue: S79 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1600-0463.1998.tb05620.x
ISSN1600-0463
Autores Tópico(s)Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
ResumoAPMISVolume 106, Issue S79 p. 5-34 Objective malignancy grading: A review emphasizing unbiased stereology applied to breast tumors MORTEN LADEKARL, MORTEN LADEKARL Stereological Research Laboratory, University Institute of Pathology, Second University Clinic of Internal Medicine, Institute of Experimental Clinical Research, University of Aarhus, DenmarkSearch for more papers by this author MORTEN LADEKARL, MORTEN LADEKARL Stereological Research Laboratory, University Institute of Pathology, Second University Clinic of Internal Medicine, Institute of Experimental Clinical Research, University of Aarhus, DenmarkSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 October 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0463.1998.tb05620.xCitations: 2AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES 1 Page DL: Prognosis and breast cancer. Recognition of lethal and favorable prognostic types. Am J Surg Pathol 15: 334–349, 1991. 10.1097/00000478-199104000-00002 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2 Lythgoe JP, Leek I., Swindell R.: Manchester regional breast study. Preliminary results. Lancet i: 744–747, 1978. 10.1016/S0140-6736(78)90859-0 CASGoogle Scholar 3 Recht A., Houlihan MJ: Axillary lymph nodes and breast cancer. A review. Cancer 76: 1491–1512, 1995. 10.1002/1097-0142(19951101)76:9 3.0.CO;2-8 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4 Hacene K., Le Doussal V., Rouesse J., Brunet M.: Predicting distant metastases in operable breast cancer patients. Cancer 66: 2034–2043, 1990. 10.1002/1097-0142(19901101)66:9 3.0.CO;2-W CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 5 Bezwoda WR, Esser JD, Dansey R., Kessel I., Lange M.: The value of estrogen and progesterone receptor determinations in advanced breast cancer. Estrogen receptor level but not progesterone receptor level correlated with response to tamoxifen. Cancer 68: 867–872, 1991. 10.1002/1097-0142(19910815)68:4 3.0.CO;2-H CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 6 Linden MD, Torres FX, Kubus J., Zarbo RJ: Clinical application of morphologic and immunocytochemical assessments of cell proliferation. Am J Clin Pathol 97: 4–12, 1992. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 7 ASCO Tumor Marker Expert Panel: Clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 14: 2843–2877, 1996. 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.10.2843 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 8 Leader MB, Kay EW, Walsh CJB, Dolan J.: Assessment of DNA ploidy: a review of methods and significance. Current Diagnostic Pathology 1: 105–113, 1994. 10.1016/S0968-6053(06)80017-7 Google Scholar 9 Tubiana M., Pejovic MH, Koscielny S., Chavaudra N., Malaise E.: Growth rate, kinetics of tumor cell proliferation and long-term outcome in human breast cancer. Int J Cancer 44: 17–22, 1989. 10.1002/ijc.2910440104 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 10 Lopez-Gines C., Callaghen RC, Ruiz A., Gil R., Pellin A., Calderon J., Vazquez C., Llombart-Bosch A.: Cytogenetics, flow cytometry, cytophotometry and morphometry of 22 cases of primary breast carcinoma. A comparative study. Virchows Arch (Cell Pathol) 61: 133–140, 1991. 10.1007/BF02890415 CASGoogle Scholar 11 Donovan-Peluso M., Contento AM, Tobon H., Ripepi B., Locker J.: Oncogene amplification in breast cancer. Am J Pathol 138: 835–845, 1991. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 12 Ghossein RA, Rosai J.: Polymerase chain reaction in the detection of micrometastases and circulating tumor cells. Cancer 78: 10–16, 1996. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960701)78:1 3.0.CO;2-L CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 13 Sharkey FE: Biological meaning of stage and grade in human breast cancer: review and hypothesis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2: 299–322, 1982. 10.1007/BF01805872 Google Scholar 14 Black MM, Opler SR, Speer FD: Survival in breast cancer cases in relation to the structure of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes. Surg Gynecol Obstet May: 543–551, 1955. Google Scholar 15 Black MM, Barclay THC, Hankey BF: Prognosis in breast cancer utilizing histologic characteristics of the primary tumor. Cancer 36: 2048–2055, 1975. 10.1002/cncr.2820360619 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 16 Bloom HJG, Richardson WW: Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer. A study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer 11: 359–377, 1957. 10.1038/bjc.1957.43 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 17 Elston CW, Ellis IO: 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. Histopathology 19: 403–410, 1991. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 18 World Health Organization: The World Health Organization histological typing of breast tumors — second edition. Am J Clin Pathol 78: 806–816, 1982. 10.1093/ajcp/78.6.806 PubMedGoogle Scholar 19 Patey DH, Scarff RW: The position of histology in the prognosis of carcinoma of the breast. Lancet i: 801–804, 1928. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)76762-6 Google Scholar 20 Henson DE: The histological grading of neoplasms. Arch Pathol Lab Med 112: 1091–1096, 1988. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 21 Andersen JA, Fischermann K., Hou-Jensen K., Henriksen E., Andersen KW, Johansen H., Brincker H., Mouridsen HT, Castberg T., Rossing N., Rørth M.: Selection of high risk groups among prognostically favorable patients with breast cancer. An analysis of the value of prospective grading of tumor anaplasia in 1,048 patients. Ann Surg 194: 1–3, 1981. 10.1097/00000658-198107000-00001 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 22 Todd JH, Dowle MR, Williams MR, Elston CW, Ellis IO, Hinton CP, Blarney RW, Haybittle JL: Confirmation of a prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 56: 489–492, 1987. 10.1038/bjc.1987.230 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 23 Delides GS, Garas G., Georgouli G., Jiortziotis D., Lecca J., Liva T., Elemenoglou J.: Intralaboratory variations in the grading of breast carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 106: 126–128, 1982. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 24 Stenkvist B., Westman-Naeser S., Vegelius J., Holmquist J., Nordin B., Bengtsson E., Eriksson O.: Analysis of reproducibility of subjective grading systems for breast carcinoma. J Clin Pathol 32: 979–985, 1979. 10.1136/jcp.32.10.979 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 25 Gilchrist KW, Kalish L., Gould VE, Hirschl S., Imbriglia JE, Levy WM, Patchefsky AS, Penner DW, Pickren J., Roth JA, Schinella RA, Schwartz IS, Wheeler JE: Interobserver reproducibility of histopathological features in stage II breast cancer. An ECOG study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 5: 3–10, 1985. 10.1007/BF01807642 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 26 Theissig F., Kunze KD, Haroske G., Meyer W.: Histological grading of breast cancer. Interobserver, reproducibility and prognostic significance. Path Res Pract 186: 732–736, 1990. 10.1016/S0344-0338(11)80263-3 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 27 Diest PJv, Baak JPA. Quantitative cyto- and histoprognosis in breast cancer. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers BY, 1992. Google Scholar 28 Sørensen FB, Sasaki M., Fukuzawa S., Yamabe H., Olsen S., Yoshida O.: Qualitative and quantitative histopathology in transitional cell carcinomas of the urinary bladder. An international investigation of intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. Lab Invest 70: 242–254, 1994. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 29 Diest PJv, Baak JPA, Matze-Cok P., Wisse-Brekelmans ECM, Galen CMv, Kurver PHJ, Bellot SM, Fijnheer J., Gorp LHMv, Kwee WS, Los J., Peterse JL, Ruitenberg HM, Schapers RFM, Schipper MEI, Somsen JG, Willig AWPM, Ariens AT: Reproducibility of mitotis counting in 2,469 breast cancer specimens: results from the Multicenter Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project. Hum Pathol 23: 603–607, 1992. 10.1016/0046-8177(92)90313-R PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 30 Uyterlinde AM, Baak JPA, Schipper NW, Peterse HJ, Meijer JWR, Vooys PG, Matze E.: Prognostic value of morphometry and DNA flow-cytometry features of invasive breast cancers detected by population screening: comparison with control group of hospital patients. Int J Cancer 48: 173–181, 1991. 10.1002/ijc.2910480204 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 31 Baak JPA, Wisse-Brekelmans ECM, Kurver PHJ, Gorp LHMv, Voorhorst FJ, Miettinen OS: Regional differences in breast cancer survival are correlated with differences in differentiation and rate of proliferation. Hum Pathol 23: 989–992, 1992. 10.1016/0046-8177(92)90259-6 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 32 Gamel JW, McLean I., Greenberg RA, Naids RM, Folberg R., Donoso LA, Seddon JM, Albert DM: Objective assessment of the malignant potential of intraocular melanomas with standard microslides stained with hematoxylin-eosin. Hum Pathol 16: 689–692, 1985. 10.1016/S0046-8177(85)80153-2 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 33 Sørensen FB: Quantitative analysis of nuclear size for objective malignancy grading: a review with emphasis on new, unbiased stereologic methods. Lab Invest 66: 4–23, 1992. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 34 True LD: Morphometric applications in anatomic pathology. Hum Pathol 27: 450–467, 1996. 10.1016/S0046-8177(96)90089-1 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 35 Underwood EE. Quantitative stereology. Reading, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970. Google Scholar 36 Cruz-Orive LM: Distribution-free estimation of sphere size distributions from slabs showing overprojection and truncation, with a review of previous methods. J Microsc 131: 265–290, 1983. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1983.tb04255.x Google Scholar 37 Gundersen HJG, Bendtsen TF, Korbo L., Marcussen N., Møller A., Nielsen K., Nyengaard JR, Pakkenberg B., Sørensen FB, Vesterby A., West MJ: Some new, simple and efficient stereological methods and their use in pathological research and diagnosis. APMIS 96: 379–394, 1988. 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1988.tb05320.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 38 Saper CB: Any way you cut it: a new journal policy for the use of unbiased counting methods. J Comp Neurol 364: 5, 1996. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19960101)364:1 3.0.CO;2-9 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 39 Elias H., Hennig A., Schwartz DE: Stereology: applications to biomedical research. Physiol Rev 51: 158–200, 1971. 10.1152/physrev.1971.51.1.158 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 40 Weibel ER. Stereological methods. Practical methods for biological morphometry. New York: Academic Press, 1980. Google Scholar 41 Gundersen HJG, Bagger P., Bendtsen TF, Evans SM, Korbo L., Marcussen N., Møller A., Nielsen K., Nyengaard JR, Pakkenberg B., Sørensen FB, Vesterby A., West MJ: The new sterological tools: disector, fractionator, nucleator and point sampled intercepts and their use in pathological research and diagnosis. APMIS 96: 857–881, 1988. 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1988.tb00954.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 42 Cruz-Orive LM, Weibel ER: Recent stereological methods for cell biology: a brief survey. Am J Physiol 258: 148–156, 1990. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 43 Collan Y., Torkkeli T., Pesonen E., Jantunen E., Kosma V-M: Application of morphometry in tumor pathology. Analyt Quant Cytol Histol 9: 79–88, 1987. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 44 Hamilton PW, Allen DC. Quantitative clinical pathology. McGraw Hill, 1995. Google Scholar 45 Weibel ER: The value of stereology in analysing structure and function of cells and organs. J Microsc 95: 3–13, 1972. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1972.tb03707.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 46 Nielsen K., Colstrup H., Nilsson T., Gundersen HJG: Stereological estimates of nuclear volume correlated with histopathological grading and prognosis of bladder tumour. Virchows Arch (Cell Pathol) 52: 41–54, 1986. 10.1007/BF02889949 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 47 Stierer M., Rosen H., Weber R.: Nuclear pleomorphism, a strong prognostic factor in axillary node-negative small invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 20: 109–116, 1991. 10.1007/BF01834640 Web of Science®Google Scholar 48 Schmid H-P, McNeal JE: An abbreviated standard procedure for accurate tumor volume estimation in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 16: 184–191, 1992. 10.1097/00000478-199202000-00012 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 49 Pickel H., Haas J.: Microcarcinoma of the vulva. J Reprod Med 31: 831–835, 1986. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 50 Underwood JCE: A morphometric analysis of human breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer 26: 234–237, 1972. 10.1038/bjc.1972.32 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 51 Sharkey FE, Pavlak RJ, Greiner AS: Morphometric analysis of differentiation in human breast carcinoma. Tumor grading. Arch Pathol Lab Med 107: 406–410, 1983. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 52 Ladekarl M., Jensen V., Nielsen B.: Stereologic estimation of breast tumor size. Analyt Quant Cytol Histol 18: 151–158, 1996. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 53 Gundersen HJG, Jensen EB: The efficiency of systematic sampling in stereology and its prediction. J Microsc 147: 229–263, 1987. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1987.tb02837.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 54 Bahmer FA, Schild R.: Die vertikale Tumordicke als Schätzer des tatsächlichen Tumorvolumens. Z Hautkr 65: 901–904, 1990. CASPubMedGoogle Scholar 55 Jensen Myhre O.: Gross examination of musculoskeletal sarcomas. Estimation of tumour volume and sampling for unbiased morphometry. APMIS 99: 1031–1037, 1991. 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1991.tb01296.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 56 Sørensen FB, Brændgaard H., Christiansen AO, Bojsen-Møller M., Reske-Nielsen E.: Stereological estimates of nuclear volume and other quantitative variables in supratentorial brain tumors. Practical technique and use in prognostic evaluation. J Neuro-Oncol 10: 253–262, 1991. 10.1007/BF00177538 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 57 Ladekarl M., Svanholm H.: Influence of fixation, embedding and section mounting on stereological estimates of cancer cell mean volume-weighted nuclear volume. Acta Stereol 15: 165–169, 1996. Google Scholar 58 Jensen Myhre O., Høgh H., Østgaard SE, Nordentoft AM, Sneppen O.: Histopathological grading of soft tissue tumours. Prognostic significance in a prospective study of 278 consecutive cases. J Pathol 163: 19–24, 1991. 10.1002/path.1711630105 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 59 Mostofi FK, Sobin LH, Torloni H., and pathologists in fourteen countries. Histological typing of urinary bladder tumours. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1973. Google Scholar 60 Black R., Prescott R., Bers K., Hawkins A., Stewart H., Forrest P.: Tumour cellularity, oestrogen receptors and prognosis in breast cancer. Clin Oncol 9: 311–318, 1983. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 61 Baak JPA, Dop Hv, Kurver PHJ, Hermans J.: The value of morphometry to classic prognosticators in breast cancer. Cancer 56: 374–382, 1985. 10.1002/1097-0142(19850715)56:2 3.0.CO;2-9 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 62 Linden Cvd, Baak JPA, Hermans J., Meyer CJLM: Morphometry and breast cancer II. Characterisation of breast cancer cells with high malignant potential in patients with spread to lymph nodes: preliminary results. J Clin Pathol 39: 603–609, 1986. 10.1136/jcp.39.6.603 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 63 Ladekarl M., Sørensen FB: Quantitative histopathological variables in in situ and invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas of the breast. APMIS 101: 895–903, 1993. 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1993.tb00198.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 64 Ambros RA, Trost RC: Cellularity in breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 93: 98–100, 1990. 10.1093/ajcp/93.1.98 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 65 Helander K., Hofer P-Å, Holmberg G.: Karyometric investigations on urinary bladder carcinoma, correlated to histopathological grading. Virchows Arch (Pathol Anat) 403: 117–125, 1984. 10.1007/BF00695228 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 66 Parham DM, Robertson AJ, Brown RA: Morphometric analysis of breast carcinoma: association with survival. J Clin Pathol 41: 173–177, 1988. 10.1136/jcp.41.2.173 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 67 Jannink I., Diest PJv, Baak JPA: Comparison of the prognostic value of four methods to assess mitotic activity in 186 invasive breast cancer patients: classical and random mitotic activity assessments with correction for volume percentage of epithelium. Hum Pathol 26: 1086–1092, 1995. 10.1016/0046-8177(95)90270-8 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 68 Laroye GJ, Minkin S.: The impact of mitotic index on predicting outcome in breast carcinoma: a comparison of different counting methods in patients with different lymph node status. Modern Pathol 4: 456–460, 1991. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 69 Lipponen PE, Collan Y., Eskelinen MJ: Volume corrected mitotic index (M/V index), mitotic activity index (MAI), and histological grading in breast cancer. Int Surg 76: 245–249, 1991. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 70 Woosley JT: Measuring cell proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 115: 555–557, 1991. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 71 Simpson JF, Dutt PL, Page DL: Expression of mitoses per thousand cells and cell density in breast carcinomas: a proposal. Hum Pathol 23: 608–611, 1992. 10.1016/0046-8177(92)90314-S CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 72 Ladekarl M., Jensen V.: Quantitative histopathology in lymph node-negative breast cancer. Prognostic significance of mitotic counts. Virchows Arch 427: 265–270, 1995. 10.1007/BF00203393 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 73 Going JJ: Techniques of mitosis counting. Hum Pathol 24: 113–114, 1993. 10.1016/0046-8177(93)90072-O CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 74 Sterio DC: The unbiased estimation of number and sizes of arbitrary particles using the disector. J Microsc 134: 127–136, 1984. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1984.tb02501.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 75 Sørensen FB: Stereological estimation of the mean and variance of nuclear volume from vertical sections. J Microsc 162: 203–229, 1991. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1991.tb03132.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 76 Gundersen HJG: Stereology of arbitrary particles. A review of unbiased number and size estimators and the presentation of some new ones, in memory of William R. Thompson. J Microsc 143: 3–45, 1986. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1986.tb02764.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 77 Ladekarl M., Jensen V., Nielsen B. Total number of cancer cell nuclei and mitoses in breast tumors estimated by the optical disector. Analyt Quant Cytol Histol 19: 329–337, 1997. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 78 Ladekarl M.: Quantitative histopathology in ductal carcinoma of the breast: prognostic value of mean nuclear size and mitotic counts. Cancer 75: 2114–2122, 1995. 10.1002/1097-0142(19950415)75:8 3.0.CO;2-W PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 79 Brændgaard H., Gundersen HJG: The impact of recent stereological advances on quantitative studies of the nervous system. J Neurosci Meth 18: 39–78, 1986. 10.1016/0165-0270(86)90112-3 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 80 Tannok IF. Cell proliferation. In: IF Tannock, RP Hill, eds. The basic science of oncology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 154–177, 1992. Google Scholar 81 Speer JF, Petrosky VE, Retsky MW, Wardwell RH: A stochastic numerical model of breast cancer growth that simulates clinical data. Cancer Res 44: 4124–4130, 1984. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 82 Cotran RS, Kumar V., Robbins SL. Neoplasia. In: RS Cotran, V. Kumar, SL Robbins, eds. Robbins pathologic basis of disease. Philadelphia: WB. Saunders company, 241–303, 1994. Google Scholar 83 Black MM, Speer FD: Nuclear structure in cancer tissue. Surg Gynecol Obstet 105: 97, 1957. PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 84 Beil M., Irinopoulou T., Vassy J., Rigaut JP: Application of confocal scanning laser microscopy for an automated nuclear grading of prostate lesions in three dimensions. J Microsc 183: 231–240, 1996. 10.1046/j.1365-2818.1996.920650.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 85 Baak JPA, Kurver PHJ, de Snoo-Niewlaat AJE, de Graef S., Makkink B., Boon ME: Prognostic indicators in breast cancer - morphometric methods. Histopathology 6: 327–339, 1982. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1982.tb02727.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 86 Gundersen HJG, Jensen EB: Stereological estimation of the volume-weighted mean volume of arbitrary particles observed on random sections. J Microsc 138: 127–142, 1985. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1985.tb02607.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 87 Mattfeldt T., Mall G., Gharehbaghi H., Möller P.: Estimation of surface area and length with the orientator. J Microsc 159: 301–317, 1990. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1990.tb03036.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 88 Baddeley AJ, Gundersen HJG, Cruz-Orive LM: Estimation of surface area from vertical sections. J Microsc 142: 259–276, 1986. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1986.tb04282.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 89 Ladekarl M.: The influence of tissue processing on quantitative histopathology in breast cancer. J Microsc 174: 93–100, 1994. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1994.tb03453.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 90 Sørensen FB, Jacobsen F.: Stereological estimates of nuclear volume in the prognostic evaluation of primary flat carcinoma in situ of the urinary bladder. Histopathology 18: 531–540, 1991. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb01480.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 91 Vesterby A., Kragstrup J., Gundersen HJG, Melsen F.: Unbiased stereological estimation of surface density in bone using vertical sections. Bone 8: 13–17, 1987. 10.1016/8756-3282(87)90126-8 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 92 Roldán-Villalobos R., Artacho-Pérula E., Ruiz-Moruno FJ: Grading and prognosis of infiltrating ductal breast carcinoma by mean nuclear volume estimates. Analyt Quant Cytol Histol 18: 158–166, 1996. PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 93 Lipponen PK: Stereologically measured nuclear volume in comparison to two-dimensional nuclear morphometry, mitotic index and flow cytometry in predicting disease outcome in bladder cancer. Anticancer Res 13: 529–532, 1993. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 94 Neal HJ, Hurst PR: The estimation of mean nuclear volume in the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol 8: 293–298, 1992. 10.1002/dc.2840080320 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 95 Ladekarl M., Bæk-Hansen T., Henrik-Nielsen R., Mouritzen C., Henriques U., Sørensen FB: Objective malignancy grading of squamous cell carcinomas of the lung. Stereologic estimates of mean nuclear size are of prognostic value, independent of clinical disease stage. Cancer 76: 797–802, 1995. 10.1002/1097-0142(19950901)76:5 3.0.CO;2-M CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 96 Sørensen FB, Bichel P., Jakobsen A.: DNA level and stereologic estimates of nuclear volume in squamous cell carcinomas of the uterine cervix. A comparative study with analysis of prognostic impact. Cancer 69: 187–199, 1992. 10.1002/1097-0142(19920101)69:1 3.0.CO;2-R CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 97 Wentz WB, Reagan JW: Survival in cervical cancer with respect to cell type. Cancer 12: 384–388, 1959. 10.1002/1097-0142(195903/04)12:2 3.0.CO;2-C CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 98 Matsukuma A., Enjoji M., Toyoshima S.: Ductal carcinoma of the breast. An analysis of proportions of intraductal and invasive components. Path Res Pract 187: 62–67, 1991. 10.1016/S0344-0338(11)81046-0 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 99 Sørensen FB, Kristensen IB, Grymer F., Jakobsen A.: DNA-index and stereological estimation of nuclear volume in primary and metastatic malignant melanomas: a comparative study with analysis of heterogeneity. APMIS 98: 61–70, 1990. 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1990.tb01003.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 100 Mogensen O., Sørensen FB, Bichel P., Jakobsen A.: Nuclear volume and prognosis in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2: 141–146, 1992. 10.1046/j.1525-1438.1992.02030141.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 101 Bundgaard T., Sørensen FB, Gaihede M., Søgaard H., Overgaard J.: Stereologic, histopathologic, flow cytometric, and clinical parameters in the prognostic evaluation of 74 patients with intraoral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer 70: 1–13, 1992. 10.1002/1097-0142(19920701)70:1 3.0.CO;2-S CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 102 Mattfeldt T., Schürmann G., Matthaei-Maurer U., Feichter G., Möller P.: Morphometric equivalents of the degree of differentiation of epithelial tumors and lymphomas. Verh Dtsch Ges Path 72: 343–348, 1988. CASPubMedGoogle Scholar 103 Ørntoft TF, Nielsen K.: Heterogeneic expression of blood group A and H isoantigens in bladder tumors: association with nuclear volume. J Histochem Cytochem 37: 1153–1155, 1989. 10.1177/37.7.2732458 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 104 Langkilde NC, Wolf H., Clausen H., Kjeldsen T., Ørntoft TF: Nuclear volume and expression of T-antigen, sialosyl-Tn-antigen, and Tn-antigen in carcinoma of the human bladder. Relation to tumor recurrence and progression. Cancer 69: 219–227, 1992. 10.1002/1097-0142(19920101)69:1 3.0.CO;2-A CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 105 Jensen EB, Sørensen FB: A note on stereological estimation of the volume-weighted second moment of particle volume. J Microsc 164: 21–27, 1991. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1991.tb03188.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 106 Sørensen FB, Gamel JW, Jensen OA, Ladekarl M., McCurdy J.: Prognostic value of nucleolar size and size pleomorphism in choroidal melanomas. APMIS 101: 358–368, 1993. 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1993.tb00122.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 107 Cruz-Orive LM: Particle number can be estimated using a disector of unknown thickness: the selector. J Microsc 145: 121–142, 1987. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 108 Artacho-Pérula E., Roldán-Villalobos R. Quantitative analysis of nuclear volume and size variability of breast samples. Acta Stereol. 15: 111–118, 1996. Google Scholar 109 Rilke F., Andreola S., Carbone A., Clemente C., Pilotti S.: The importance of pathology in prognosis and management of breast cancer. Semin Oncol 5: 360–372, 1978. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 110 Kiær H., Andersen JA, Rank F., Pedersen BV: Quality control of patho-anatomical diagnosis of carcinoma of the breast. Acta Oncol 27: 745–747, 1988. 10.3109/02841868809091779 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 111 Stenkvist B., Bengtsson E., Eriksson O., Jarkrans T., Nordin B., Westman-Naeser S.: Histopathological systems of breast cancer classification: reproducibility and clinical significance. J Clin Pathol 36: 392–398, 1983. 10.1136/jcp.36.4.392 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 112 Sharkey FE: Morphometric analysis of differentiation in human breast carcinoma. Tumor heterogeneity. Arch Pathol Lab Med 107: 411–414, 1983. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 113 Diest PJv, Fleege JC, Baak JPA: Syntactic structure analysis in invasive breast cancer: analysis of reproducibility, biologic background, and prognostic value. Hum Pathol 23: 876–883, 1991.
Referência(s)