Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
You searched for:"Raquel Mary Rodrigues Peres"
We found (2) results for your search.Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016;38(5):239-245
to evaluate the agreement between the clinical and pathological stagings of breast cancer based on clinical and molecular features.
this was a cross-sectional study, in which clinical, epidemiological and pathological data were collected from 226 patients who underwent surgery at the Prof. Dr. José Aristodemo Pinotti Women's Hospital (CAISM/Unicamp) from January 2008 to September 2010. Patients were staged clinically and pathologically, and were classified as: understaged, when the clinical staging was lower than the pathological staging; correctly staged, when the clinical staging was the same as the pathological one; and overstaged, when the clinical staging was greater than the pathological staging.
understaged patients were younger (52.2 years; p < 0.01) and more symptomatic at diagnosis (p = 0.04) when compared with correctly or overstaged patients. Clinicopathological surrogate subtype, menopausal status, parity, hormone replace therapy and histology were not associated with differences in staging. Women under 57 years of age were clinically understaged mainly due to underestimation of T ( tumor staging) (p < 0.001), as were the premenopausal women (p < 0.01). Patients whose diagnosis was made due to clinical complaints, and not by screening, were clinically understaged due to underestimation of N (lymph nodes staging) (p < 0.001).
the study shows that the clinicopathological surrogate subtype is not associated with differences in staging, while younger women diagnosed because of clinical complaints tend to have their breast tumors understaged during clinical evaluation.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016;38(5):239-245
to evaluate the agreement between the clinical and pathological stagings of breast cancer based on clinical and molecular features.
this was a cross-sectional study, in which clinical, epidemiological and pathological data were collected from 226 patients who underwent surgery at the Prof. Dr. José Aristodemo Pinotti Women's Hospital (CAISM/Unicamp) from January 2008 to September 2010. Patients were staged clinically and pathologically, and were classified as: understaged, when the clinical staging was lower than the pathological staging; correctly staged, when the clinical staging was the same as the pathological one; and overstaged, when the clinical staging was greater than the pathological staging.
understaged patients were younger (52.2 years; p < 0.01) and more symptomatic at diagnosis (p = 0.04) when compared with correctly or overstaged patients. Clinicopathological surrogate subtype, menopausal status, parity, hormone replace therapy and histology were not associated with differences in staging. Women under 57 years of age were clinically understaged mainly due to underestimation of T ( tumor staging) (p < 0.001), as were the premenopausal women (p < 0.01). Patients whose diagnosis was made due to clinical complaints, and not by screening, were clinically understaged due to underestimation of N (lymph nodes staging) (p < 0.001).
the study shows that the clinicopathological surrogate subtype is not associated with differences in staging, while younger women diagnosed because of clinical complaints tend to have their breast tumors understaged during clinical evaluation.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009;31(9):461-467
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032009000900007
PURPOSE: to evaluate the expression of erbB-2 and of the estrogen and progesterone (ER/P) hormonal receptors in the transition regions between the in situ and the invasive fractions of ductal breast neoplasia (ISDC and IDC, respectively). METHODS: Eighty-five cases of breast neoplasia, containing contiguous ISDC and IDC areas, were selected. Histological specimens from the ISDC and the IDC areas were obtained through the tissue microarray (TMA) technique. The erbB-2 and the ER/PR expressions were evaluated through conventional immunohistochemistry. The McNemar's test was used for the comparative analysis of the expressions of erbB-2 protein and the ER/PR in the in situ and invasive regions of the tumors. The confidence intervals were set to 5% (p=0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the cross-tabulation agreement of the erbB-2 and the ER/PR expression in the ISDC and the IDC areas. RESULTS: the erbB-2 expression has not differed between the ISDC and the IDC areas (p=0.38). Comparing the two areas in each case, there was agreement in the expression of erbB-2 (ICC=0.64), PR (ICC=0.71) and ER (ICC=0.64). Restricting the analysis to tumors with the in situ component harboring necrosis (comedo), the ICC for erbB-2 was 0.4, compared to 0.6 for the whole sample. In this select group, the ICC for PR/ER did not differ substantially from those obtained with the complete dataset: as for the ER, ICC=0.7 (versus 0.7 for the entire sample) and for PR, ICC=0.7 (versus 0.6 for the entire sample). CONCLUSIONS: our findings suggest that the erbB-2 and the ER/PR expressions do not differ in the contiguous in situ and invasive components of breast ductal tumors.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009;31(9):461-467
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032009000900007
PURPOSE: to evaluate the expression of erbB-2 and of the estrogen and progesterone (ER/P) hormonal receptors in the transition regions between the in situ and the invasive fractions of ductal breast neoplasia (ISDC and IDC, respectively). METHODS: Eighty-five cases of breast neoplasia, containing contiguous ISDC and IDC areas, were selected. Histological specimens from the ISDC and the IDC areas were obtained through the tissue microarray (TMA) technique. The erbB-2 and the ER/PR expressions were evaluated through conventional immunohistochemistry. The McNemar's test was used for the comparative analysis of the expressions of erbB-2 protein and the ER/PR in the in situ and invasive regions of the tumors. The confidence intervals were set to 5% (p=0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the cross-tabulation agreement of the erbB-2 and the ER/PR expression in the ISDC and the IDC areas. RESULTS: the erbB-2 expression has not differed between the ISDC and the IDC areas (p=0.38). Comparing the two areas in each case, there was agreement in the expression of erbB-2 (ICC=0.64), PR (ICC=0.71) and ER (ICC=0.64). Restricting the analysis to tumors with the in situ component harboring necrosis (comedo), the ICC for erbB-2 was 0.4, compared to 0.6 for the whole sample. In this select group, the ICC for PR/ER did not differ substantially from those obtained with the complete dataset: as for the ER, ICC=0.7 (versus 0.7 for the entire sample) and for PR, ICC=0.7 (versus 0.6 for the entire sample). CONCLUSIONS: our findings suggest that the erbB-2 and the ER/PR expressions do not differ in the contiguous in situ and invasive components of breast ductal tumors.
