Skip Navigation

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007 37(4):266-274; doi:10.1093/jjco/hym026
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Otsuki, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Kobayashi, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Otsuki, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Kobayashi, H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© 2007 Foundation for Promotion of Cancer Research

Which is the Better Pathological Prognostic Factor, the Nottingham Histological Grade or the Japanese Nuclear Grade? A Large Scale Study with a Long-term Follow-up

Yoshiro Otsuki1, Shin-ichi Shimizu1, Kaori Suwa2, Masayuki Yoshida2, Masao Kanzaki3 and Hiroshi Kobayashi1,

1 Departments of Pathology
2 Breast Surgery, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka
3 Kanzaki Clinic, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan

For reprints and all correspondence: Hiroshi Kobayashi, Department of Pathology, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, 2-12-12 Sumiyoshi, Hamamatsu, 430-8558, Japan. E-mail: kobayashi{at}sis.seirei.or.jp

Received October 3, 2006; accepted November 13, 2006

Background: We compared the Nottingham histological grade (H-grade) and the Japanese nuclear grade (N-grade) to select the better prognostic factor for breast cancers.

Methods: The series included 1786 patients with breast cancers with the exception of non-invasive and stage 4 cancers. They were classified according to the H- and N-grade. We analyzed their survival curves and also performed multivariate Cox regression analyses.

Results: According to the H-grade classification, 476 cases were grade 1, 647 cases were grade 2 and 663 cases were grade 3. According to the N-grade, 381 cases were grade 1, 215 cases were grade 2, and 1129 cases were grade 3. In the survival curves of those cases with lymph node metastases (N(+)) and recurrent cases, there were statistically significant differences in different categories of the H-grades, but not in the N-grades. The survival curves of all the cases and those cases without lymph node metastases (N(–)) always exhibited statistically significant differences. According to the 2003 St Gallen consensus, the N(–) group was classified as a minimal risk and an average risk groups. Both H- and N-grade exhibited statistically significant differences between the minimal risk and the average risk groups in the disease-free survival. The multivariate analyses proved that the H-grade was a statistically significant prognostic factor in all the cases and N(+) group, but the N-grade was not significant in any of the studies.

Conclusions: The H-grade is clearly proved to be a more significant prognostic factor for wider stage cases than the N-grade.

Key Words: breast cancer • histological grade • pathological grade • prognostic factor


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.