Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Traditional and newer pathologic factors.

S J Schnitt1

  • 1Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, East Campus, 330 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02215, USA. sschnitt@caregroup.harvard.edu

Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs
|January 5, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Clinical challenges and proposed solutions for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer.

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2025
Same author

ESMO expert consensus statements (ECS) on the definition, diagnosis, and management of HER2-low breast cancer.

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2023
Same author

Should Ki-67 be adopted to select breast cancer patients for treatment with adjuvant abemaciclib?

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2021
Same author

Papillary lesions of the breast: selected diagnostic and management issues.

Histopathology·2008
Same author

Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk: potential role for antiestrogens.

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research·2002
Same author

Current status of HER2 testing: caught between a rock and a hard place.

American journal of clinical pathology·2002
Same journal

Impact of WHO Classification of Tumours on cancer prevention, diagnosis, research, public health, and economics.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs·2026
Same journal

Cancer epigenetics: unraveling etiology and mechanisms to advance prevention.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs·2026
Same journal

Oncogenic infections: targets highly amenable to cancer prevention.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs·2026
Same journal

The continuing importance of the IARC's international remit in cancer research.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs·2026
Same journal

Environmental and occupational cancer: highlighting research contributions from the IARC on its 60th anniversary.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs·2026
Same journal

Progress in identifying the preventable causes of human cancer: the experience of the IARC Monographs program.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs·2026
See all related articles

Identifying reliable prognostic and predictive factors for breast cancer patients is crucial. Traditional markers remain vital, while newer markers require standardization for clinical utility.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Biomarker Research

Background:

  • A clinical need exists for improved prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer patient management.
  • While numerous biological and molecular markers have been explored, traditional factors like lymph node status and tumor size are still highly valuable.
  • Methodological variability in evaluating newer markers hinders their clinical translation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To highlight the importance of established prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer.
  • To address the challenges in validating and implementing novel biomarkers.
  • To advocate for standardization in the evaluation of new breast cancer markers.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature on breast cancer prognostic and predictive factors.
  • Analysis of the limitations in current biomarker evaluation methodologies.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Discussion of criteria for clinical utility of prognostic and predictive markers.

    • Main Results:

    • Traditional clinicopathological factors remain the most reliable indicators of prognosis and treatment response.
    • Significant methodological variability exists in the assessment of novel biological and molecular markers.
    • Lack of standardization impedes the clinical adoption of many promising new markers.

    Conclusions:

    • Standardization of methods, interpretation, and reporting is essential for the clinical utility of new breast cancer prognostic and predictive markers.
    • Adoption of stringent criteria will clarify the value of emerging biomarkers.
    • Integrating validated novel markers alongside traditional factors can optimize breast cancer patient management.