| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Cserni, G, et al.
(författare)
-
Consistency in recognizing microinvasion in breast carcinomas is improved by immunohistochemistry for myoepithelial markers.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Virchows Archiv: an international journal of pathology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1432-2307. ; 468:4, s. 473-481
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Microinvasion is the smallest morphologically identifiable stage of invasion. Its presence and distinction from in situ carcinoma may have therapeutic implications, and clinical staging also requires the recognition of this phenomenon. Microinvasion is established on the basis of several morphological criteria, which may be difficult and not perfectly reproducible among pathologists. The aim of this study was to assess the consistency of diagnosing microinvasion in the breast on traditional haematoxylin and eosin (HE) stained slides and to evaluate whether immunohistochemistry (IHC) for myoepithelial markers could improve this. Digital images were generated from representative areas of 50 cases stained with HE and IHC for myoepithelial markers. Cases were specifically selected from the spectrum of in situ to microinvasive cancers. Twenty-eight dedicated breast pathologists assessed these cases at different magnifications through a web-based platform in two rounds: first HE only and after a washout period by both HE and IHC. Consistency in the recognition of microinvasion significantly improved with the use of IHC. Concordance rates increased from 0.85 to 0.96, kappa from 0.5 to 0.85, the number of cases with 100 % agreement rose from 9/50 to 25/50 with IHC and the certainty of diagnosis also increased. The use of IHC markedly improves the consistency of identifying microinvasion. This corroborates previous recommendations to use IHC for myoepithelial markers to clarify cases where uncertainty exists about the presence of microinvasion. Microinvasive carcinoma is a rare entity, and seeking a second opinion may avoid overdiagnosis.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- In ’t Veld, Sjors G.J.G., et al.
(författare)
-
Detection and localization of early- and late-stage cancers using platelet RNA
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Cancer Cell. - : Elsevier. - 1535-6108 .- 1878-3686. ; 40:9, s. 999-1009.e6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cancer patients benefit from early tumor detection since treatment outcomes are more favorable for less advanced cancers. Platelets are involved in cancer progression and are considered a promising biosource for cancer detection, as they alter their RNA content upon local and systemic cues. We show that tumor-educated platelet (TEP) RNA-based blood tests enable the detection of 18 cancer types. With 99% specificity in asymptomatic controls, thromboSeq correctly detected the presence of cancer in two-thirds of 1,096 blood samples from stage I–IV cancer patients and in half of 352 stage I–III tumors. Symptomatic controls, including inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases, and benign tumors had increased false-positive test results with an average specificity of 78%. Moreover, thromboSeq determined the tumor site of origin in five different tumor types correctly in over 80% of the cancer patients. These results highlight the potential properties of TEP-derived RNA panels to supplement current approaches for blood-based cancer screening.
|
|
| 8. |
- Pashayan, N, et al.
(författare)
-
Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature reviews. Clinical oncology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1759-4782 .- 1759-4774. ; 17:11, s. 687-705
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness–implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
