Grading systems for breast carcinoma: comparative study of cytohistological agreement - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

Home » Issues » 2003, Volume 25, Number 2

Trabalhos Originais

Grading systems for breast carcinoma: comparative study of cytohistological agreement

Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2003;25(2):87-94

DOI: 10.1590/S0100-72032003000200003

Views 6

PURPOSE: to assess the concordance of cytological tumoral and nuclear grading systems on fine needle aspiration biopsies of breast carcinoma with histological specimens and compare them to identify the best results. METHODS: cytohistological agreement was evaluated in a retrospective study of 50 cases of fine needle aspiration biopsies of histologically confirmed invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast, with 5 grading systems being applied for comparative purposes.The classifications were divided according to criteria of tumoral grading (nuclear and architectural criteria – Mouriquand and Guilford systems) and nuclear criteria (Black modified by Fisher (BM), simplified Black system (SB) and Hunt system). The grading systems used for histological analysis were those of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson modified by Elston (SBR modified) for tumor evaluation and the BM systems for nuclear evaluation. RESULT: the cytological grading systems that showed best agreement were BM and SB based on nuclear criteria (anisonucleosis, size, mitosis, and chromatin). Among the cytological grading systems based on nuclear and architectural criteria (combined), Guilford’s classification showed the best agreement, possibly due to the larger number of variables used, which permitted a smaller margin of error. CONCLUSION: the methods evaluated in the present study can be considered reasonable as cytological grading systems.

Key-words Breast carcinoma Fine needle aspiration Histological grading Nuclear grading

Read Full Text

opener
PDF - English PDF - Português Complete text JATS XML
How to Cite
Mendeley

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
correction
editorial
letter
other
rapid-communication
research-article
review-article
Section
Arigos Originais
Article
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
FEBRASGO POSITION STATEMENT
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read Full Text

opener
PDF - English PDF - Português Complete text JATS XML
How to Cite
Mendeley

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
correction
editorial
letter
other
rapid-communication
research-article
review-article
Section
Arigos Originais
Article
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
FEBRASGO POSITION STATEMENT
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE

Leia também

close-button

How to cite this article

EndNote RIS

Electronic Document Format (Vancouver)

Dantas KAN, Santos GC, Giannotti Filho O. Grading systems for breast carcinoma: comparative study of cytohistological agreement. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia 2003;25(2):87-94.

Electronic Document Format (ABNT)

Dantas, Karla Adriana Nascimento; Santos, Gilda da Cunha; Giannotti Filho, Osvaldo. Grading systems for breast carcinoma: comparative study of cytohistological agreement. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, v. 25, n. 2, p. 87-94, Jul. 2003.

Electronic Document Format (APA)

Dantas, K. A. N., Santos, G. C., & Giannotti Filho, O. (2003). Grading systems for breast carcinoma: comparative study of cytohistological agreement. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, 25(2), 87-94.

Electronic Document Format (ISO)

Dantas, Karla Adriana Nascimento and Santos, Gilda da Cunha and Giannotti Filho, Osvaldo. Grading systems for breast carcinoma: comparative study of cytohistological agreement. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia [online]. 2003, vol. 25, n. 2, [cited 2024-12-23], pp.87-94. Available from: <https://journalrbgo.org/article/grading-systems-for-breast-carcinoma-comparative-study-of-cytohistological-agreement/>.
✕

Grading systems for breast carcinoma: comparative study of cytohistological agreement |

PURPOSE: to assess the concordance of cytological tumoral and nuclear grading systems on fine needle aspiration biopsies of breast carcinoma with histological specimens and compare them to identify the best results. METHODS: cytohistological agreement was evaluated in a retrospective study of 50 cases of fine needle aspiration biopsies of histologically confirmed invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast, with 5 grading systems being applied for comparative purposes.The classifications were divided according to criteria of tumoral grading (nuclear and architectural criteria - Mouriquand and Guilford systems) and nuclear criteria (Black modified by Fisher (BM), simplified Black system (SB) and Hunt system). The grading systems used for histological analysis were those of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson modified by Elston (SBR modified) for tumor evaluation and the BM systems for nuclear evaluation. RESULT: the cytological grading systems that showed best agreement were BM and SB based on nuclear criteria (anisonucleosis, size, mitosis, and chromatin). Among the cytological grading systems based on nuclear and architectural criteria (combined), Guilford's classification showed the best agreement, possibly due to the larger number of variables used, which permitted a smaller margin of error. CONCLUSION: the methods evaluated in the present study can be considered reasonable as cytological grading systems.