48,455
edits
Difference between revisions of "Breast cancer grading"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Note about mitosis counting
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
*Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.<ref name=pmid12405945>{{cite journal |author=Elston CW, Ellis IO |title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410 |journal=Histopathology |volume=41 |issue=3A |pages=151–2, discussion 152–3 |year=2002 |month=September |pmid=12405945 |doi= |url=}}</ref> They also wrote a follow-up article in 2002.<ref name=pmid1757079>{{cite journal |author=Elston CW, Ellis IO |title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up |journal=Histopathology |volume=19 |issue=5 |pages=403–10 |year=1991 |month=November |pmid=1757079 |doi= |url=}}</ref> | *Elston & Ellis devised the system that is used.<ref name=pmid12405945>{{cite journal |author=Elston CW, Ellis IO |title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403-410 |journal=Histopathology |volume=41 |issue=3A |pages=151–2, discussion 152–3 |year=2002 |month=September |pmid=12405945 |doi= |url=}}</ref> They also wrote a follow-up article in 2002.<ref name=pmid1757079>{{cite journal |author=Elston CW, Ellis IO |title=Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up |journal=Histopathology |volume=19 |issue=5 |pages=403–10 |year=1991 |month=November |pmid=1757079 |doi= |url=}}</ref> | ||
==Note about mitosis counting== | ===Note about mitosis counting=== | ||
*One | *One really ought to adjust for the size of the field of view. | ||
*Most of | *Most of modern microscopes have an eye piece diameter of 22 mm. Therefore, the field diameter at 40x is approximately 22 mm / 40x ~= 0.55 mm and the field of view is pi/4*(0.55 mm)<sup>2</sup> = 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup>. | ||
**Thus, on a | **Thus, on a typical modern microscope (with a FOV of 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup>) one should sample 6 or 7 fields of view (FsOV). | ||
***Calculation: 1.52 mm | ***Calculation: 1.52 mm<sup>2</sup> (sampling area) / 0.2376 mm<sup>2</sup> (area / FOV ) = 6.40 FsOV. | ||
*'''RANT''': Sampling 10 fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm | *'''RANT''': Sampling 10 fields, where the field of view (FOV) is 0.152 mm<sup>2</sup>, is ''not'' the same as sampling ten fields, where the FOV is 0.312 mm^2. It surpring that Elston & Ellis ignore the fact that "10 HPFs" on different microscopes represent different sample areas and that they do ''not'' standardize the sampling area. | ||
==Calculating Nottingham score== | ==Calculating Nottingham score== | ||