A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Assessment of mitotic rate reporting in melanoma. | LitMetric

Assessment of mitotic rate reporting in melanoma.

Am J Surg

Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, 315 E. Broadway, Suite 312, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.

Published: December 2012

Background: In patients with cutaneous melanoma, mitotic rate (MR) historically has been reported as the number of mitoses per high-power field (hpf) or per 10 hpf. The most recent revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system now incorporates MR and specifies that MR should be reported as mitoses per mm(2), with a conversion factor of 1 mm(2) equaling 4 hpf. However, because many pathologists continue to report MR in hpf units, we sought to compare the 2 conventions for reporting MR; this is important now that MR is used for staging and prognostic information.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of a database that combined patients from a large multicenter study and our single-institution melanoma database. All patients with pathology reports that included MR were included. For patients with MR reported in hpf units, MR was converted to mitoses per 10 hpf. Statistical analysis was performed to test differences in Breslow thickness (BT), ulceration, sentinel lymph node (SLN) status, and overall survival (OS) (log-rank test) between the mitoses per mm(2) group versus the mitoses per 10-hpf group.

Results: A total of 1,148 patients were identified; of these, 759 were reported as per mm(2) and 389 were reported in hpf units. When patients were subdivided into categories of MR of 0, 1, or more than 1, there was no statistically significant difference in mean or median BT, ulceration, or SLN positivity within categories between patients with MR per mm(2) versus patients with MR reported per 10 hpf. There was also no difference in OS between groups. Subdividing into smaller categories of MR of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more than 5 did not yield different results.

Conclusions: Although the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system reports a conversion factor for MR of 1 mm(2) equals 4 hpf, no clinically meaningful differences in predictors of prognosis (BT, ulceration, SLN positivity) or OS were seen between groups when a conversion factor of 1 mm(2) equaling 10 hpf was used. Therefore, for practical purposes, MR reported per 10 hpf approximates MR per mm(2).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.05.021DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reported hpf
16
conversion factor
12
factor mm2
12
hpf units
12
hpf
11
mitotic rate
8
patients
8
american joint
8
joint committee
8
committee cancer
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!