Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade.

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with varied morphological appearances, molecular features, behavior, and response to therapy. Current routine clinical management of breast cancer relies on the availability of robust clinical and pathological prognostic and predictive factors to support clinical and patient decision making in which potentially suitable treatment options are increasingly available. One of the best-established prognostic factors in breast cancer is histological grade, which represents the morphological assessment of tumor biological characteristics and has been shown to be able to generate important information related to the clinical behavior of breast cancers. Genome-wide microarray-based expression profiling studies have unraveled several characteristics of breast cancer biology and have provided further evidence that the biological features captured by histological grade are important in determining tumor behavior. Also, expression profiling studies have generated clinically useful data that have significantly improved our understanding of the biology of breast cancer, and these studies are undergoing evaluation as improved prognostic and predictive tools in clinical practice. Clinical acceptance of these molecular assays will require them to be more than expensive surrogates of established traditional factors such as histological grade. It is essential that they provide additional prognostic or predictive information above and beyond that offered by current parameters. Here, we present an analysis of the validity of histological grade as a prognostic factor and a consensus view on the significance of histological grade and its role in breast cancer classification and staging systems in this era of emerging clinical use of molecular classifiers.

Sources of pre-analytical variations in yield of DNA extracted from blood samples: analysis of 50,000 DNA samples in EPIC.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition (EPIC) is a long-term, multi-centric prospective study in Europe investigating the relationships between cancer and nutrition. This study has served as a basis for a number of Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and other types of genetic analyses. Over a period of 5 years, 52,256 EPIC DNA samples have been extracted using an automated DNA extraction platform. Here we have evaluated the pre-analytical factors affecting DNA yield, including anthropometric, epidemiological and technical factors such as center of subject recruitment, age, gender, body-mass index, disease case or control status, tobacco consumption, number of aliquots of buffy coat used for DNA extraction, extraction machine or procedure, DNA quantification method, degree of haemolysis and variations in the timing of sample processing. We show that the largest significant variations in DNA yield were observed with degree of haemolysis and with center of subject recruitment. Age, gender, body-mass index, cancer case or control status and tobacco consumption also significantly impacted DNA yield. Feedback from laboratories which have analyzed DNA with different SNP genotyping technologies demonstrate that the vast majority of samples (approximately 88%) performed adequately in different types of assays. To our knowledge this study is the largest to date to evaluate the sources of pre-analytical variations in DNA extracted from peripheral leucocytes. The results provide a strong evidence-based rationale for standardized recommendations on blood collection and processing protocols for large-scale genetic studies.

Plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for first-line steady-state autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: results of the prospective PREDICT trial.

In Europe, the combination of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is approved for the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma whose cells mobilize poorly. The purpose of this study was to further assess the safety and efficacy of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for front-line mobilization in European patients with lymphoma or myeloma. In this multicenter, open label, single-arm study, patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (10 μg/kg/day) subcutaneously for 4 days; on the evening of day 4 they were given plerixafor (0.24 mg/kg) subcutaneously. Patients underwent apheresis on day 5 after a morning dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. The primary study objective was to confirm the safety of mobilization with plerixafor. Secondary objectives included assessment of efficacy (apheresis yield, time to engraftment). The combination of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was used to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells in 118 patients (90 with myeloma, 25 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 3 with Hodgkin's disease). Treatment-emergent plerixafor-related adverse events were reported in 24 patients. Most adverse events occurred within 1 hour after injection, were grade 1 or 2 in severity and included gastrointestinal disorders or injection-site reactions. The minimum cell yield (≥ 2 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg) was harvested in 98% of patients with myeloma and in 80% of those with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in a median of one apheresis. The optimum cell dose (≥ 5 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or ≥ 6 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg for myeloma) was harvested in 89% of myeloma patients and 48% of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. In this prospective, multicenter European study, mobilization with plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor allowed the majority of patients with myeloma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to undergo transplantation with minimal toxicity, providing further data supporting the safety and efficacy of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for front-line mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or myeloma.

The role of polymerase chain reaction of high-risk human papilloma virus in the screening of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in the anal mucosa of human immunodeficiency virus-positive males having sex with males.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the advantages of cytology and PCR of high-risk human papilloma virus (PCR HR-HPV) infection in biopsy-derived diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL = AIN2/AIN3) in HIV-positive men having sex with men (MSM). METHODS This is a single-centered study conducted between May 2010 and May 2014 in patients (n = 201, mean age 37 years) recruited from our outpatient clinic. Samples of anal canal mucosa were taken into liquid medium for PCR HPV analysis and for cytology. Anoscopy was performed for histology evaluation. RESULTS Anoscopy showed 33.8% were normal, 47.8% low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), and 18.4% HSIL; 80.2% had HR-HPV. PCR of HR-HPV had greater sensitivity than did cytology (88.8% vs. 75.7%) in HSIL screening, with similar positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 20.3 vs. 22.9 and 89.7 vs. 88.1, respectively. Combining both tests increased the sensitivity and NPV of HSIL diagnosis to 100%. Correlation of cytology vs. histology was, generally, very low and PCR of HR-HPV vs. histology was non-existent (<0.2) or low (<0.4). Area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve analysis of cytology and PCR HR-HPV for the diagnosis of HSIL was poor (<0.6). Multivariate regression analysis showed protective factors against HSIL were: viral suppression (OR: 0.312; 95%CI: 0.099-0.984), and/or syphilis infection (OR: 0.193; 95%CI: 0.045-0.827). HSIL risk was associated with HPV-68 genotype (OR: 20.1; 95%CI: 2.04-197.82). CONCLUSIONS When cytology and PCR HR-HPV findings are normal, the diagnosis of pre-malignant HSIL can be reliably ruled-out in HIV-positive patients. HPV suppression with treatment protects against the appearance of HSIL.

Diagnostic yield of a PCR assay in focal complications of brucellosis.

In order to evaluate the diagnostic yield of a PCR assay for patients with focal complications of brucellosis, we studied by PCR and by conventional microbiological techniques 34 nonblood samples from 32 patients with different focal forms of brucellosis. The samples from patients with brucellosis were paired to an equal number of control samples from the same locations of patients whose illnesses had different etiologies. Thirty-three of the 34 nonblood samples (97%) from the brucellosis patients were positive by PCR, whereas Brucella spp. were isolated from only 29.4% of the conventional cultures. For 11.4% of the patients, the confirmatory serological tests were either negative or showed titers below the diagnostic range. Two patients (6.2%) from the control group, both with tuberculous vertebral osteomyelitis, had a positive PCR result. The brucella PCR of blood from these two patients was also positive, and the two strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolated were analyzed by the brucella PCR, with no evidence of amplification. These results show that the PCR assay is far more sensitive than conventional cultures, and this, coupled with its speed and reduction in risk to laboratory workers, makes this technique a very useful tool for the diagnosis of focal complications of brucellosis.