RESUMO
This study compares the influence of two different nuclear sampling methods on the prognostic value of assessments of mean and standard deviation of nuclear area (MNA, SDNA) in 191 consecutive invasive breast cancer patients with long term follow up. The first sampling method used was 'at convenience' sampling (ACS); the second, systematic random sampling (SRS). Both sampling methods were tested with a sample size of 50 nuclei (ACS-50 and SRS-50). To determine whether, besides the sampling methods, sample size had impact on prognostic value as well, the SRS method was also tested using a sample size of 100 nuclei (SRS-100). SDNA values were systematically lower for ACS, obviously due to (unconsciously) not including small and large nuclei. Testing prognostic value of a series of cut off points, MNA and SDNA values assessed by the SRS method were prognostically significantly stronger than the values obtained by the ACS method. This was confirmed in Cox regression analysis. For the MNA, the Mantel-Cox p-values from SRS-50 and SRS-100 measurements were not significantly different. However, for the SDNA, SRS-100 yielded significantly lower p-values than SRS-50. In conclusion, compared with the 'at convenience' nuclear sampling method, systematic random sampling of nuclei is not only superior with respect to reproducibility of results, but also provides a better prognostic value in patients with invasive breast cancer.
