© 2001 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 30, 22-26,
2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press
Traditional and Newer Pathologic Factors
Affiliations of author: Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Correspondence to: Stuart J. Schnitt, M.D., Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, East Campus, 330 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02215 (e-mail: sschnitt{at}caregroup.harvard.edu).
There has long been a pressing clinical need to identify prognostic and predictive factors for patients with breast cancer. Although numerous candidate biological and molecular markers have been identified during the last two decades, traditional factors such as lymph node status, tumor size, histologic type, histologic grade, and hormone receptor status remain the most useful indicators of prognosis and therapeutic response. A major obstacle to the translation of research advances into clinically useful prognostic and predictive markers has been the considerable methodologic variability used in the evaluation of the newer markers. It is now generally accepted that, to be useful in patient management, a putative prognostic or predictive marker must have clinical importance, independence, significance, and standardization with regard to methods, interpretation, and reporting. It is hoped that recognition and adoption of these criteria will serve to clarify the value of newer biologic and molecular markers.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. H. Lee, E. L. Rosen, and D. A. Mankoff The Role of Radiotracer Imaging in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Breast Cancer: Part 1--Overview, Detection, and Staging J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2009; 50(4): 569 - 581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. T. Ross, C.-y. Kim, G. Tang, O. L. Bohn, R. A. Beck, B. Z. Ring, R. S. Seitz, S. Paik, J. P. Costantino, and N. Wolmark Chemosensitivity and Stratification by a Five Monoclonal Antibody Immunohistochemistry Test in the NSABP B14 and B20 Trials Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2008; 14(20): 6602 - 6609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Ross, W. F. Symmans, L. Pusztai, and G. N. Hortobagyi Standardizing Slide-Based Assays in Breast Cancer: Hormone Receptors, HER2, and Sentinel Lymph Nodes Clin. Cancer Res., May 15, 2007; 13(10): 2831 - 2835. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. F Willard, M. Angrist, and G. S Ginsburg Genomic medicine: genetic variation and its impact on the future of health care Phil Trans R Soc B, August 29, 2005; 360(1460): 1543 - 1550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|