30 research outputs found

    Multifactorial Analysis of Differences Between Sporadic Breast Cancers and Cancers Involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations

    Get PDF
    Background: We have previously demonstrated that breast cancers associated with inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations differ from each other in their histopathologic appearances and that each of these types differs from breast cancers in patients unselected for family history (i.e., sporadic cancers). We have now conducted a more detailed examination of cytologic and architectural features of these tumors. Methods: Specimens of tumor tissue (5-Āµm-thick sections) were examined independently by two pathologists, who were unaware of the case or control subject status, for the presence of cell mitosis, lymphocytic infiltration, continuous pushing margins, and solid sheets of cancer cells; cell nuclei, cell nucleoli, cell necrosis, and cell borders were also evaluated. The resulting data were combined with previously available information on tumor type and tumor grade and further evaluated by multifactorial analysis. All statistical tests are two-sided. Results: Cancers associated with BRCA1 mutations exhibited higher mitotic counts (P = .001), a greater proportion of the tumor with a continuous pushing margin (P<.0001), and more lymphocytic infiltration (P = .002) than sporadic (i.e., control) cancers. Cancers associated with BRCA2 mutations exhibited a higher score for tubule formation (fewer tubules) (P = .0002), a higher proportion of the tumor perimeter with a continuous pushing margin (P<.0001), and a lower mitotic count (P = .003) than control cancers. Conclusions: Our study has identified key features of the histologic phenotypes of breast cancers in carriers of mutant BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This information may improve the classification of breast cancers in individuals with a family history of the disease and may ultimately aid in the clinical management of patients. [J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1138-45

    Editorial

    No full text

    Assessing patientsā€™ participation and quality of decision-making:insights from a study of routine practice in diverse settings

    Get PDF
    In the context of a qualitative study exploring patientsā€™ participation in decision-making, we investigated how people interpret and respond to structured questions about decision-making about their health care. Seventy-four participants who attended consultations in five clinical areas completed structured measures of decision-making and discussed their responses during interviews. They identified a range of decisions as having being made in their consultations. People who picked particular responses on measures of participation in and satisfaction with decision-making gave varied explanations for these, not all of which were consistent with the way their responses are usually interpreted. The interview data suggest that peopleā€™s evaluations of decisions to follow a particular course of action were influenced by various factors including what they focused on as the alternative, their perceptions of constraints on choices, and their assessment of how good the best possible solution was. Responses to simple structured measures of participation in and satisfaction with decision-making should be interpreted with caution. They are not reliably attributable to health care providersā€™ actions and are thus unsuitable for performance assessment purposes
    corecore