Skip Navigation

JNCI Monographs 2001 2001(30):22-26;
© 2001 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schnitt, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schnitt, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 30, 22-26, 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press

Traditional and Newer Pathologic Factors

Stuart J. Schnitt

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
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]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.