Cargando…

Mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area

BACKGROUND: Mitotic rate is routinely assessed in breast cancer cases and based on the assessment of 10 high power fields (HPF), a non-standard sample area, as per the College of American Pathologists cancer checklist. The effect of sample area variation has not been assessed. METHODS: A computer mo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bonert, Michael, Tate, Angela J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28202066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-016-0301-z
_version_ 1782508208466690048
author Bonert, Michael
Tate, Angela J.
author_facet Bonert, Michael
Tate, Angela J.
author_sort Bonert, Michael
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Mitotic rate is routinely assessed in breast cancer cases and based on the assessment of 10 high power fields (HPF), a non-standard sample area, as per the College of American Pathologists cancer checklist. The effect of sample area variation has not been assessed. METHODS: A computer model making use of the binomial distribution was developed to calculate the misclassification rate in 1,000,000 simulated breast specimens using the extremes of field diameter (FD) and mitotic density cutoffs (3 and 8 mitoses/mm(2)), and for a sample area of 5 mm(2). Mitotic counts were assumed to be a random sampling problem using a mitotic rate distribution derived from an experimental study (range 0–16.4 mitoses/mm(2)). The cellular density was 2500 cell/mm(2). RESULTS: For the smallest microscopes (FD = 0.40 mm, area 1.26 mm(2)) 16% of cases were misclassified, compared to 9% of the largest (FD 0.69 mm, area 3.74 mm(2)), versus 8% for 5 mm(2). An excess of 27% of score 2 cases were misclassified as 1 or 3 for the lower FD. CONCLUSION: Mitotic scores based on ten HPFs of a small field area microscope are less reliable measures of the mitotic density than in a bigger field area microscope; therefore, the sample area should be standardized. When mitotic counts are close to the cut-offs the score is less reproducible. These cases could benefit from using larger sample areas. A measure of mitotic density variation due to sampling may assist in the interpretation of the mitotic score. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12938-016-0301-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5312435
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53124352017-02-24 Mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area Bonert, Michael Tate, Angela J. Biomed Eng Online Research BACKGROUND: Mitotic rate is routinely assessed in breast cancer cases and based on the assessment of 10 high power fields (HPF), a non-standard sample area, as per the College of American Pathologists cancer checklist. The effect of sample area variation has not been assessed. METHODS: A computer model making use of the binomial distribution was developed to calculate the misclassification rate in 1,000,000 simulated breast specimens using the extremes of field diameter (FD) and mitotic density cutoffs (3 and 8 mitoses/mm(2)), and for a sample area of 5 mm(2). Mitotic counts were assumed to be a random sampling problem using a mitotic rate distribution derived from an experimental study (range 0–16.4 mitoses/mm(2)). The cellular density was 2500 cell/mm(2). RESULTS: For the smallest microscopes (FD = 0.40 mm, area 1.26 mm(2)) 16% of cases were misclassified, compared to 9% of the largest (FD 0.69 mm, area 3.74 mm(2)), versus 8% for 5 mm(2). An excess of 27% of score 2 cases were misclassified as 1 or 3 for the lower FD. CONCLUSION: Mitotic scores based on ten HPFs of a small field area microscope are less reliable measures of the mitotic density than in a bigger field area microscope; therefore, the sample area should be standardized. When mitotic counts are close to the cut-offs the score is less reproducible. These cases could benefit from using larger sample areas. A measure of mitotic density variation due to sampling may assist in the interpretation of the mitotic score. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12938-016-0301-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5312435/ /pubmed/28202066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-016-0301-z Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Bonert, Michael
Tate, Angela J.
Mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area
title Mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area
title_full Mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area
title_fullStr Mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area
title_full_unstemmed Mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area
title_short Mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area
title_sort mitotic counts in breast cancer should be standardized with a uniform sample area
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28202066
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-016-0301-z
work_keys_str_mv AT bonertmichael mitoticcountsinbreastcancershouldbestandardizedwithauniformsamplearea
AT tateangelaj mitoticcountsinbreastcancershouldbestandardizedwithauniformsamplearea