The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long‐term follow‐up
Abstract
The histological tumour type determined by current criteria has been investigated in a consecutive series of 1621 women with primary operable breast carcinoma, presenting between 1973 and 1987. All women underwent definitive surgery with node biopsy and none received adjuvant systemic therapy. Special types, tubular, invasive cribriform and mucinous, with a very favourable prognosis can be identified. A common type of tumour recognized by our group and designated tubular mixed carcinoma is shown to be prognostically distinct from carcinomas of no special type; it has a characteristic histological appearance and is the third most common type in this series. Analysis of subtypes of lobular carcinoma confirms differing prognoses. The classical, tubulo‐lobular and lobular mixed types are associated with a better prognosis than carcinomas of no special type; this is not so for the solid variant. Tubulo‐lobular carcinoma in particular has an extremely good prognosis similar to tumours included in the ‘special type’ category above. Neither medullary carcinoma nor atypical medullary carcinoma are found to carry a survival advantage over carcinomas of no special type. The results confirm that histological typing of human breast carcinoma can provide useful prognostic information.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Cited by
A living biobank of breast cancer organoids captures disease heterogeneity
Sachs, N., de Ligt, J., Kopper, O., Gogola, E., Bounova, G., Weeber, F., Balgobind, A. V., Wind, K., Gracanin, A., Begthel, H., et al. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.010 · Cited by 1,973
Tumor-Infiltrating CD8+Lymphocytes Predict Clinical Outcome in Breast Cancer
Mahmoud, S. M. A., Paish, E. C., Powe, D. G., Macmillan, R. D., Grainge, M. J., Lee, A. H. S., Ellis, I. O., & Green, A. R. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.30.5037 · Cited by 1,367
Self-citationHistological types of breast cancer: How special are they?
Weigelt, B., Geyer, F. C., & Reis-Filho, J. S. (2010) · Molecular Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.molonc.2010.04.004 · Cited by 572
Rakha, E., Putti, T., Abd El‐Rehim, D., Paish, C., Green, A., Powe, D., Lee, A., Robertson, J., & Ellis, I. (2006) · The Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1002/path.1916 · Cited by 311
Self-citationThe prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in invasive breast carcinoma
Rakha, E. A., Martin, S., Lee, A. H. S., Morgan, D., Pharoah, P. D. P., Hodi, Z., MacMillan, D., & Ellis, I. O. (2012) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.26711 · Cited by 271
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- ELLIS, I. O., GALEA, M., BROUGHTON, N., LOCKER, A., BLAMEY, R. W., & ELSTON, C. W.
- Venue
- Histopathology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-06
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 479-489
- ISSN
- 0309-0167 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2559
- OpenAlex
- W2001575298
- Cited by
- 487
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.13
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long‐term follow‐up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1992.tb01032.x
- The paper
- ELLIS, I. O., GALEA, M., BROUGHTON, N., LOCKER, A., BLAMEY, R. W., & ELSTON, C. W. (1992). Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long‐term follow‐up. Histopathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1992.tb01032.x
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.
