Budel V, Merle S, Gasperin P, Collet J F, De Maublanc M A, Kiss R
Department of Gynecology, Evangelical Faculty of Medicine of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Anticancer Res. 1994 Nov-Dec;14(6B):2845-51.
The present study describes the setting up of a new score which makes it possible objectively to grade ductal breast carcinomas, i.e. not-otherwise-specified (NOS) cancers, on cellular material from fine-needle aspirations (FNAs). For this purpose FNAs from 252 patients--with NOS breast cancers--were smeared onto histological slides, fixed in an ethanol-formolacetic acid mixture, Feulgen-stained and analysed by means of a cell image processor. Four parameters were taken into account in setting up the score, namely the cytological prognostic grade (CPM) of malignancies similar to the Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading, the nuclear area (NA), the DNA index (DI) and the DNA histogram type (DHT). Each of these four parameters was considered as a "sub-score" which may take three values, i.e. 1, 2 and 3. The final result may thus range from 4 to 12. Subscores of 4 and 5 correspond to a cytological score of I, subscores of 6, 7 and 8 to a cytological score of II, sub-scores of 9 and 10 to a cytological score of III, and sub-scores of 11 and 12 to a cytological score of IV. In the present study, the results show 17% of CPM grade 1.52% of CPM grade II and 31% of CPM grade III cancers. All the cases exhibiting a cytological score of IV (5%) fully fit in with the CPM grade III cancers. In the same way, none of the cases exhibiting a score of I fit in with CPM grade III cancers. The cancers with a CPM grade II fit in with the scores of II and III. It thus seems possible to convert a three-value malignancy grading system (CPM and/or SBR grading) into a four-value one (cytological score). The main advantage in this latter type of system is that it becomes possible to split up the over-large group of CPM grade II cancers. As things stand, we are unable to give any prognostic value for the score proposed here because our study is prospective only. A study of this type has been necessary so as to provide against problems connected with ways of preserving specimens that might be used in a retrospective study. The bank of clinical and biological data now in existence must be allowed to mature for a number of years before the prognostic worth of the cytological score can be established, always assuming that such a value exists.
本研究描述了一种新评分系统的建立,该系统能够客观地对乳腺导管癌(即未另行规定的(NOS)癌症)的细针穿刺抽吸(FNA)细胞材料进行分级。为此,将252例患有NOS乳腺癌患者的FNA涂片于组织学载玻片上,用乙醇 - 甲醛 - 乙酸混合液固定,福尔根染色,并通过细胞图像处理器进行分析。建立该评分系统时考虑了四个参数,即类似于斯卡夫 - 布鲁姆 - 理查森(SBR)分级的恶性肿瘤细胞学预后分级(CPM)、核面积(NA)、DNA指数(DI)和DNA直方图类型(DHT)。这四个参数中的每一个都被视为一个“子评分”,其可能取三个值,即1、2和3。因此,最终结果的范围可能为4至12。子评分为4和5对应于细胞学评分为I,子评分为6、7和8对应于细胞学评分为II,子评分为9和10对应于细胞学评分为III,子评分为11和12对应于细胞学评分为IV。在本研究中,结果显示CPM I级癌症占17%,CPM II级癌症占52%,CPM III级癌症占31%。所有细胞学评分为IV(5%)的病例完全符合CPM III级癌症。同样,没有任何细胞学评分为I的病例符合CPM III级癌症。CPM II级癌症符合II级和III级评分。因此,似乎有可能将一个三值恶性肿瘤分级系统(CPM和/或SBR分级)转换为一个四值系统(细胞学评分)。后一种系统的主要优点是可以将过大的CPM II级癌症组进行细分。就目前情况而言,我们无法为此处提出的评分给出任何预后价值,因为我们的研究仅是前瞻性的。进行此类研究是必要的,以便防止与可能用于回顾性研究的标本保存方式相关的问题。在能够确定细胞学评分的预后价值之前(始终假设存在这样的值),现有的临床和生物学数据库必须经过数年的完善。