Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Morphological and immunophenotypic analysis of breast carcinomas with basal and myoepithelial differentiation

Rakha, EA, Putti, TC, Abd El‐Rehim, DM, Paish, C, Green, AR, Powe, DG, Lee, AH, Robertson, JF, Ellis, IO·2006·The Journal of Pathology

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the morphological characteristics and immunohistochemical profile of breast carcinomas with basal and myoepithelial phenotypes to obtain a better understanding of their biological behaviour and nature. One thousand nine hundred and forty‐four invasive breast carcinomas were examined, using tissue microarray (TMA) technology and immunohistochemistry, to identify those tumours that showed basal and myoepithelial phenotypes, and their immunophenotype profile was characterized using a variety of markers. In addition, haematoxylin and eosin‐stained sections of these tumours were studied for several morphological parameters. The findings were correlated with patient and tumour characteristics and outcome data. Tumours were classified into two groups: (1) tumours with basal phenotype [expressing one or both basal markers (CK5/6 and/or CK14)] and (2) tumours with myoepithelial phenotype (expressing SMA and/or p63). Group 1 was further subdivided into two subgroups: (A) dominant basal pattern (more than 50% of cells positive) and (B) basal characteristics (10–50% of cells positive). Group 1 tumours constituted 18.6% (8.6% and 10% for groups 1A and 1B, respectively) and group 2 constituted 13.7% of the cases. In both groups, the most common histological types were ductal/no specific type, tubular mixed and medullary‐like carcinomas; the majority of these tumours were grade 3. There were positive associations with adenoid cystic growth pattern, loss of tubule formation, marked cellular pleomorphism, poorer Nottingham prognostic index, and development of distant metastasis. In addition, associations were found with loss of expression of steroid hormone receptors and FHIT proteins and positive expression of p53 and EGFR. The most common characteristics in group 1 were larger size, high‐grade comedo‐type necrosis, development of tumour recurrence, and absence of lymph node disease. Group 2 tumours were more common in younger patients and were associated with central acellular zones, basaloid change, and positive E‐cadherin protein expression. Group 1 characteristics were associated with both reduced overall survival (OS) [log rank (LR) = 22.5, p < 0.001] and reduced disease‐free interval (DFI) (LR = 30.1, p < 0.001), while group 2 characteristics showed an association with OS (LR = 5, p = 0.02) but not with DFI. Multivariate analysis showed that basal, but not myoepithelial, phenotype has an independent value in predicting outcome. Breast cancers with basal and myoepithelial phenotypes are distinct groups of tumours that share some common morphological features and an association with poor prognosis. The basal rather than the myoepithelial phenotype has the strongest relationship with patient outcome. Copyright © 2006 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/path.1916

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rakha, E., Putti, T., Abd El‐Rehim, D., Paish, C., Green, A., Powe, D., Lee, A., Robertson, J., & Ellis, I.
Venue
The Journal of Pathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01-20
Volume
208
Issue
4
Pages
495-506
ISSN
  • 0022-3417 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9896
OpenAlex
W1976279830
Cited by
311
References
39
FWCI
13.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.