Prognostic significance of microvessel density in breast cancer of Thai women.

OBJECTIVE: Angiogenesis is important in the process of tumor growth and progression of breast cancer Microvessel density (MVD) is the most commonly used technique to quantify intratumoral angiogenesis in breast cancer. In the present study, the authors investigated the prognostic indicator of intratumoral MVD in predicting overall survival, disease recurrence, and distance metastasis of breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Two hundred patients who were diagnosed as invasive breast cancer from January 2000 to December 2004 were included in the present study, but only 64 patients had complete pathological specimens and tumor receptor studies. Representative paraffin sections of the primary tumor including the tumor border were immunostained with a monoclonal anti-CD34 antibody. The area of highest vascular density ("hot spot") was identified and the average count of three hot spots in each tumor was used for analyses. The distribution of MVD was categorized into high and low MVD as more than 76 and less than 76 respectively. Overall survival probability was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate Cox regression was employed to examine the relationship between MVD and disease outcomes while adjusting for other concomitant variables. RESULT: The tumor size and more advanced disease have correlated with poor outcomes of invasive breast cancer. Tumor size is a poor predictor for local recurrence [Harzard ratio 1.02 (95% CI 0.99-1.04)] and more disease staging have correlated with distance metastases [Harzard ratio 1.48 (95% CI 0.98-2.24)]. The cancer staging only predicted poor outcome in invasive breast cancer in overall recurrence [Harzard ratio 1.51 (95% CI 1.05-2.16)]. MVD is not correlated with both tumor recurrence and distance metastases [Hazard ratio for local recurrence 1.01 (95% CI 0.99-1.04) and Harzard ratio 1.00 (95% CI 0.97-1.02)]. CONCLUSION: The microvessel density (MVD) has not predicted poor outcomes of invasive breast cancer in Thai woman.

A two-phase study model for the standardization of HER2 immunohistochemical assay on invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and verify a standardized protocol for HER2 immunohistochemical assays on invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast in Thailand. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A two-phase study approach was employed. In the Phase One, after verifying the proposed protocol that adopted the HercepTest procedure using readily available primary antibodies, CB11 and A0485, Lab 1 performed the HER2 immunohistochemical staining for 137 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma twice with two types of the antibody. Nine pathologists from 8 centers independently examined and scored all the 2 x 137 stained slides that were blinded for antibody type. Interobserver reliability was calculated using pair-wise kappa. Following discussion of the results, the Phase Two study was planned. Lab 2 and Lab 3 independently performed the HER2 staining according to the protocol for 60 invasive breast carcinoma cases. The same group of pathologists scored 2 x 60 stained slides that were masked for laboratories. Interobserver reliability and interlaboratory agreement from each pathologist were calculated using kappa statistics. Three interpreted categories--namely negative, equivocal and positive tests were used in the analyses. RESULTS: Phase One study showed interobserver agreement between pairs varied from kappa 0.75 (95%CI, 0.68-0.82) to 0.06 (95%CI, 0-0.14) while Phase Two study obtained pair-wise kappa scores ranged from 0.84 (95%CI, 0. 80-0.89) to 0. 65 (95%CI, 0.59-0.71). Interlaboratory kappa for each pathologist was 0.67 (95%CI, 0.61-0.73). CONCLUSION: The standardization of HER2 immunohistochemical assay was achieved through this two-phase study model. It had added benefits of improving pathologists' expertise and verifying the HER2 testing protocol to be used in Thailand.

Breast cancer underestimation rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core-needle biopsy under imaging guidance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breast cancer underestimation rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed by core-needle biopsy (CNB) under imaging guidance in Ramathibodi Hospital and to determine the difference between the malignant and benign groups in terms of clinical and imaging characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The pathological records of 1521 patients who underwent CNB under imaging guidance were reviewed. Thirty-nine patients diagnosed with ADH were enrolled into the present study. Clinical data, imaging features, biopsy technique and result of excisional biopsy as well as follow-up data were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Of 39 ADH cases, eight (20.5%) were found to have malignancy on subsequent excisional biopsy. The majority of these were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (62.5%). Lesion categorized as category 5 according to BI-RADS (Breast imaging reporting and data system) was the only feature which was statistically different between the benign and malignant groups. No statistically significant difference was found between the benign and malignant groups in terms of age, personal and family history of breast cancer, clinical finding, mammographic lesion type, size of lesion, image-guided technique and percentage of lesion removal. CONCLUSION: The underestimation rate of ADH in the present study was comparable to other studies. The finding of Bl-RADS category 5 in patients with ADH diagnosed from CNB is a strong indication for subsequent excisional biopsy.

Nondiagnostic core needle biopsy of the breast under imaging guidance: result of rebiopsy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate and the clinical application of recommendation for repeat biopsy after core needle biopsy (CNB) under imaging guidance and to determine the result of rebiopsy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective review was performed in 1,306 consecutive women who underwent core needle biopsy under imaging guidance at the breast diagnostic center, the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital from October 1997 to March 2004. RESULTS: Among 1,306 patients, there were 44 patients (3.37%) who had undergone rebiopsy. The three most common reasons for recommendation of rebiopsy were discordant imaging and pathology, atypical ductal hyperplasia and inadequate specimen. The authors found 12 malignancies subsequently found in rebiopsy (27.3%). The most common reason for rebiopsy in this group was inadequate specimen. CONCLUSION: Core needle biopsy under imaging guidance is a minimally invasive diagnostic tool and promises high accuracy and reliability. However, some patients need rebiopsy to exclude hidden malignancy. The cooperation between the radiologists, surgeons and pathologists are prudent for giving the best care to the patients.