Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1991 Apr;63(4):591–595. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.137

Medullary carcinoma of the breast, proposal for a new simplified histopathological definition. Based on prognostic observations and observations on inter- and intraobserver variability of 11 histopathological characteristics in 131 breast carcinomas with medullary features.

L Pedersen 1, K Zedeler 1, S Holck 1, T Schiødt 1, H T Mouridsen 1
PMCID: PMC1972345  PMID: 2021545

Abstract

In a previous study of 131 breast carcinomas with medullary features, we evaluated the diagnostic inter- and intraobserver variation and its prognostic implications using the criteria of typical (TMC) and atypical (AMC) medullary carcinoma of the breast put forward by Ridolfi et al. (1977). We found a considerable interobserver variation as well as intraobserver variation, with significant implication on prognosis, and concluded that the histopathological definition of MC must be sharpened and simplified in order to increase the diagnostic reproducibility. In the present study of the same population of 131 patients with breast carcinomas with medullary features we have examined inter- and intraobserver variation concerning 11 histopathological characteristics. Furthermore, we have analysed the prognostic importance of these 11 histopathological features, and the prognostic implications of the observed inter- and intraobserver variation. Based on the observations, we have eliminated criteria with poor inter-/intraobserver agreement as well as those implying no or minimal impact on the prognosis. We propose a new simplified histopathological definition of medullary carcinoma of the breast (MC), retaining reproducible, prognostically significant criteria (syncytial growth pattern and diffuse, moderate or marked mononuclear infiltration). The prognosis of MC, based on this definition, is significantly better than those of infiltrating ductal carcinomas grade II + III.

Full text

PDF
591

Images in this article

592Figure 1
on p.592

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Andersen K. W., Mouridsen H. T., Castberg T., Fischerman K., Andersen J., Hou-Jensen K., Brincker H., Johansen H., Henriksen E., Rørth M. Organisation of the Danish adjuvant trials in breast cancer. Dan Med Bull. 1981 Aug;28(3):102–106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BLOOM H. J., RICHARDSON W. W. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer. 1957 Sep;11(3):359–377. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1957.43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cutler S. J., Black M. M., Friedell G. H., Vidone R. A., Goldenberg I. S. Prognostic factors in cancer of the female breast. II. Reproducibility of histopathologic classification. Cancer. 1966 Jan;19(1):75–82. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(196601)19:1<75::aid-cncr2820190108>3.0.co;2-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Davis B. W., Gelber R. D., Goldhirsch A., Hartmann W. H., Locher G. W., Reed R., Golouh R., Säve-Söderbergh J., Holloway L., Russell I. Prognostic significance of tumor grade in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis. Cancer. 1986 Dec 15;58(12):2662–2670. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19861215)58:12<2662::aid-cncr2820581219>3.0.co;2-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Delides G. S., Garas G., Georgouli G., Jiortziotis D., Lecca J., Liva T., Elemenoglou J. Intralaboratory variations in the grading of breast carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1982 Mar;106(3):126–128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fisher B., Fisher E. R., Redmond C., Brown A. Tumor nuclear grade, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor: their value alone or in combination as indicators of outcome following adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1986;7(3):147–160. doi: 10.1007/BF01806245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fisher E. R., Gregorio R. M., Fisher B., Redmond C., Vellios F., Sommers S. C. The pathology of invasive breast cancer. A syllabus derived from findings of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (protocol no. 4). Cancer. 1975 Jul;36(1):1–85. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197507)36:1<1::aid-cncr2820360102>3.0.co;2-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gjørup T., Jensen A. M. Kappakoefficienten--et mål for reproducerbarhed af nominale og ordinale data. Nord Med. 1986;101(3):90–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Landis J. R., Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Langley F. A. Quality control in histopathology and diagnostic cytology. Histopathology. 1978 Jan;2(1):3–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1978.tb01689.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pedersen L., Holck S., Schiødt T. Medullary carcinoma of the breast. Cancer Treat Rev. 1988 Mar;15(1):53–63. doi: 10.1016/0305-7372(88)90009-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pedersen L., Holck S., Schiødt T., Zedeler K., Mouridsen H. T. Inter- and intraobserver variability in the histopathological diagnosis of medullary carcinoma of the breast, and its prognostic implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1989 Oct;14(1):91–99. doi: 10.1007/BF01805979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. RICHARDSON W. W. Medullary carcinoma of the breast; a distinctive tumour type with a relatively good prognosis following radical mastectomy. Br J Cancer. 1956 Sep;10(3):415–423. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1956.48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rank F., Dombernowsky P., Jespersen N. C., Pedersen B. V., Keiding N. Histologic malignancy grading of invasive ductal breast carcinoma. A regression analysis of prognostic factors in low-risk carcinomas from a multicenter trial. Cancer. 1987 Sep 15;60(6):1299–1305. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19870915)60:6<1299::aid-cncr2820600623>3.0.co;2-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rapin V., Contesso G., Mouriesse H., Bertin F., Lacombe M. J., Piekarski J. D., Travagli J. P., Gadenne C., Friedman S. Medullary breast carcinoma. A reevaluation of 95 cases of breast cancer with inflammatory stroma. Cancer. 1988 Jun 15;61(12):2503–2510. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19880615)61:12<2503::aid-cncr2820611219>3.0.co;2-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ridolfi R. L., Rosen P. P., Port A., Kinne D., Miké V. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathologic study with 10 year follow-up. Cancer. 1977 Oct;40(4):1365–1385. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197710)40:4<1365::aid-cncr2820400402>3.0.co;2-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Schwartz G. F. Solid circumscribed carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg. 1969 Feb;169(2):165–173. doi: 10.1097/00000658-196902000-00002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 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. 1979 Oct;32(10):979–985. doi: 10.1136/jcp.32.10.979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Wargotz E. S., Silverberg S. G. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathologic study with appraisal of current diagnostic criteria. Hum Pathol. 1988 Nov;19(11):1340–1346. doi: 10.1016/s0046-8177(88)80290-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES