| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2010 | Volume
: 27
| Issue : 2 | Page : 55-58 |
|
|
Cytological grading of breast cancers and comparative evaluation of two grading systems
Farooq Ahmed Wani1, Subhash Bhardwaj2, Dinesh Kumar3, Pervez Katoch4
1 Senior Resident, SKIMS Medical College, Srinagar, India
2 Department of Pathology, Government Medical College, Jammu, India
3 Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Government Medical College, Jammu, India
4 Department of Pathology, Government Medical College, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Correspondence Address:
Farooq Ahmed Wani
Wani Manzil, Gulmarg Colony, Bathindi, Jammu-180011, Jammu and Kashmir
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0970-9371.70738
|
|
|
Aim: To evaluate and compare the cytograding of breast cancers using Robinson's and Mouriquand's grading methods.
Materials and Methods: A 5-year retrospective (from Oct 2000 to Sept 2005) and 1-year prospective study (from Oct 2005 to Oct 2006). A total of 110 fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) cases of breast cancers were studied. These were graded according to Robinson's and Mouriquand's grading methods (grade I-III) followed by comparison of the two methods.
Results: Of the 110 cases graded according to Robinson's method, 28 (25.45%) cases were grade I, 46 (41.81%) grade II, and 36 (32.72%) were grade III, whereas using Mouriquand's grading methods, 28 (25.45%), 42 (38.18%), and 40 (36.36%) cases were graded as grade I, II, and III, respectively. A high degree of concordance was observed between the two grading methods (90.9%). A highly significant relationship between the scores obtained by two methods was also observed (P=0.004).
Conclusions: A comprehensive cytological grading of breast cancers is possible by using two different methods proposed by Robinson and Mouriquand. In spite of a high degree of concordance between the two methods, the Robinson's grading system has been found to be easier and better because of more objective set of criteria and easy reproducibility. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
