Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 1990 Feb;43(2):157–159. doi: 10.1136/jcp.43.2.157

Prognostic value of nucleolar morphometric variables in cytological breast cancer specimens.

P J van Diest 1, J Mouriquand 1, N W Schipper 1, J P Baak 1
PMCID: PMC502300  PMID: 2318993

Abstract

In a retrospective study on cytological specimens from 86 patients with histologically confirmed invasive breast cancer, the prognostic value of nucleolar morphometric variables was studied and compared with nuclear variables. One hundred nuclei and their nucleoli on each slide were measured with a graphic tablet system at a total magnification of 2800 times using a stratified selection method. The number of nucleoli per 100 nuclei was also noted. Analysis of Kaplan-Meier univariate recurrence free survival curves showed significant differences for eight nuclear features, nine nucleolar features, and three combined nuclear and nucleolar variables. The total number of nucleoli per 100 nuclei was the best single prognostic variable. Multivariate survival analysis (Cox regression model) showed that no other features provided additional prognostic information beyond that given by the total number of nucleoli. It is concluded that nucleolar morphometric variables assessed in cytological preparations have prognostic value in breast cancer, and the results of this study suggest that their prognostic value may exceed that of nuclear variables.

Full text

PDF
157

Selected References

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

  1. Baak J. P., Persijn J. P. In search for the best qualitative microscopical or morphometrical predictor of oestrogen receptor in breast cancer. Pathol Res Pract. 1984 Mar;178(4):307–314. doi: 10.1016/S0344-0338(84)80019-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baak J. P. The relative prognostic significance of nucleolar morphometry in invasive ductal breast cancer. Histopathology. 1985 Apr;9(4):437–444. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1985.tb02826.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baak J. P., Van Dop H., Kurver P. H., Hermans J. The value of morphometry to classic prognosticators in breast cancer. Cancer. 1985 Jul 15;56(2):374–382. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19850715)56:2<374::aid-cncr2820560229>3.0.co;2-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonadonna G., Rossi A., Valagussa P. Adjuvant CMF chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: ten years later. Lancet. 1985 Apr 27;1(8435):976–977. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)91740-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fallenius A. G., Auer G. U., Carstensen J. M. Prognostic significance of DNA measurements in 409 consecutive breast cancer patients. Cancer. 1988 Jul 15;62(2):331–341. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19880715)62:2<331::aid-cncr2820620218>3.0.co;2-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fleege J. C., Baak J. P., Smeulders A. W. Analysis of measuring system parameters that influence reproducibility of morphometric assessments with a graphic tablet. Hum Pathol. 1988 May;19(5):513–517. doi: 10.1016/s0046-8177(88)80196-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gamel J. W., McLean I. W. Computerized histopathologic assessment of malignant potential. II. A practical method for predicting survival following enucleation for uveal melanoma. Cancer. 1983 Sep 15;52(6):1032–1038. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19830915)52:6<1032::aid-cncr2820520618>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Helpap B. Observations on the number, size and localization of nucleoli in hyperplastic and neoplastic prostatic disease. Histopathology. 1988 Aug;13(2):203–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1988.tb02025.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kuenen-Boumeester V., Hop W. C., Blonk D. I., Boon M. E. Prognostic scoring using cytomorphometry and lymph node status of patients with breast carcinoma. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1984 Mar;20(3):337–345. doi: 10.1016/0277-5379(84)90079-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mouriquand J., Gozlan-Fior M., Villemain D., Bouchet Y., Sage J. C., Mermet M. A., Bolla M. Value of cytoprognostic classification in breast carcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 1986 May;39(5):489–496. doi: 10.1136/jcp.39.5.489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mouriquand J., Mouriquand C., Petitpas E., Louis J., Mermet M. A. Differential nucleolar staining affinity with a modified Papanicolaou staining procedure. Stain Technol. 1981 Jul;56(4):215–219. doi: 10.3109/10520298109067314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. van Diest P. J., Smeulders A. W., Thunnissen F. B., Baak J. P. Cytomorphometry. A methodologic study of preparation techniques, selection methods and sample sizes. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1989 Aug;11(4):225–231. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. van der Linden J. C., Lindeman J., Baak J. P., Meijer C. J., Herman C. J. The Multivariate Prognostic Index and nuclear DNA content are independent prognostic factors in primary breast cancer patients. Cytometry. 1989 Jan;10(1):56–61. doi: 10.1002/cyto.990100110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. van der Valk P., Mosch A., Kurver P. J., Meijer C. J. Morphometric characterisation of 52 B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. J Clin Pathol. 1983 Mar;36(3):289–297. doi: 10.1136/jcp.36.3.289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES