Howell’s cytological grading of breast carcinomas - comparison with histological grading and its association with lymph node metastasis
Abstract
Background: Determining histological grade of breast carcinomas before mastectomy is necessary to decide about neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Grade obtained from fine needle aspiration cytology samples will help in such situations particularly when core needle biopsy is not done routinely as inresource-poor setups. Methods for doing such gradingare still under study. We performedgrading of breast carcinomas in Fine Needle Aspiration smearsby Howell’s method and correlatedthe resultswith modified Bloom-Richardson histological grade in mastectomy specimens. For the first time, we also studied the prognostic significance of Howell’s grade by studying its association with lymph node metastasis.
Materials and methods: Fifty cases of Invasive carcinoma- no special type of breast in which both mastectomy and fine needle aspiration cytology were done between 2013 and 2015 were included in our study. Howell’s grading was done in Papanicolaou, Haematoxylin & eosin and May-Grunwald Giemsa stained cytology smears and correlated with modified Bloom Richardson histological grading in mastectomy specimens.
Results: The two methods had same grade in 34 cases (68%) and a kappa agreement value of 0.505. They showed a good positive correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.732) and significant association (chi-square test, p-0.0001). 12 cases were under-graded and four were over-graded. Lymph node metastasis significantly increased with increase in Howell’s cytological grade (p-0.018).
Conclusion: Howell’s cytological grading is a simple method to grade breast carcinomas before mastectomy. This method has a good concordance with histological grading.The strong association with lymph node metastasis indicates the prognostic significance of this grading method.
Downloads
References
2. Elston CW, Ellis IO. 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. Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403-10.[pubmed]
3. Schwartz AM, Henson DE, Chen D, Rajamarthandan S. Histologic grade remains a prognostic factor for breast cancer regardless of the number of positive lymph nodes and tumor size: a study of 161 708 cases of breast cancer from the SEER Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014 Aug;138(8):1048-52. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0435-OA.[pubmed]
4. Amat S, Penault-Llorca F, Cure H, et al. Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading: a pleiotropic marker of chemosensitivity in invasiveductal breast carcinomas treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Oncol. 2002 Apr;20(4):791-6.[pubmed]
5. Bansal C, Singh US, Misra S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson grading system on breast carcinoma aspirates and histopathology. Cytojournal. 2012;9:4. doi: 10.4103/1742-6413.92550. Epub 2012 Jan 31.
6.Bansal C, Pujani M, Sharma KL, et al. Grading systems in the cytological diagnosis of breast cancer: a review. J Cancer Res Ther. 2014 Oct-Dec;10(4):839-45. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.140979.[pubmed]
7. Howell LP, Gandour-Edwards R, O'Sullivan D. Application of the Scarff-Bloom-Richardson tumor grading system to fine-needle aspirates of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994 Mar;101(3):262-5.[pubmed]
8. Provenzano E, Pinder SE. Modern therapies and iatrogenic changes in breast pathology. Histopathology. 2017 Jan;70(1):40-55. doi: 10.1111/his.13098.[pubmed]
9. Moll UM, Chumas J. Morphologic effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Pathol Res Pract. 1997;193(3):187-96.[pubmed]
10. Mouriquand J, Gozlan-Fior M, Villemain D, et al. Value of cytoprognostic classification in breast carcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 1986 May;39(5):489-96.[pubmed]
11. Robinson IA , McKee G, Nicholson A, et al. Prognostic value of cytological grading of fine-needle aspirates from breast carcinomas. Lancet. 1994 Apr 16;343(8903):947-9.[pubmed]
12. Hunt CM, Ellis IO, Elston CW, et al. Cytological grading of breast carcinoma--a feasible proposition? Cytopathology. 1990;1(5):287-95.
13. Taniguchi E, Yang Q, Tang W, et al. Cytologic grading of invasive breast carcinoma. Correlation with clinicopathologic variables and predictive value of nodal metastasis. Acta Cytol. 2000 Jul-Aug;44(4):587-91. doi:10.1159/000328533. [pubmed]
14. Khan MZ, Haleem A, Al Hassani H, Kfoury H. Cytopathological grading, as a predictor of histopathological grade, in ductal carcinoma (NOS) of breast, on air-dried Diff-Quik smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003 Oct;29(4):185-93.[pubmed]
15. Saha K, Raychaudhuri G, Chattopadhyay BK, Das I. Comparative evaluation of six cytological grading systems in breast carcinoma. J Cytol. 2013 Apr;30(2):87-93. doi: 10.4103/0970-9371.112647.[pubmed]
16. Walke VA, Gunjkar G. Comparative evaluation of six parametric Robinson and three parametric Howell's modification of Scarf-BloomRichardson grading method on breast aspirates with histopathology: A prospective study. Cytojournal. 2017 Dec 27;14:31. doi: 10.4103/cytojournal.cytojournal_31_17. eCollection 2017.[pubmed]
17. Einstien D, Omprakash BO, Ganapathy H, Rahman S. Comparison of 3-tier cytological grading systems for breast carcinoma. ISRN Oncol. 2014 Mar 12;2014:252103. doi: 10.1155/2014/252103. eCollection 2014.[pubmed]
18. Arul P, Masilamani S. Comparative evaluation of various cytomorphological grading systems in breast carcinoma. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2016 Apr-Jun;37(2):79-84. doi: 10.4103/0971-5851.180141.[pubmed]
Copyright (c) 2018 Author (s). Published by Siddharth Health Research and Social Welfare Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
OAI - Open Archives Initiative
