Diagnostic Approach and Prognostic Factors of Cancers

Article information

J Korean Med Assoc. 2003;46(12):1117-1127
Publication date (electronic) : 2003 December 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2003.46.12.1117
Department of pathology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Korea. jaero@amc.seoul.kr, jangsejin@amc.seoul.kr

Abstract

When one follows a systematic approach to make a diagnosis of pathologic lesions, it is relatively easy to render a cancer diagnosis in almost all cases in routine daily practice. The first step is to recognize whether or not the specimen contains a lesion and then to determine whether the lesion is neoplastic or non-neoplastic. Since neoplasm is clonal proliferation, neoplastic conditions are usually composed of a single cell type, whereas non-neoplastic conditions consist of multiple different cell types. After a neoplastic condition has been documented, the next step is to decide whether the neoplasm is of an epithelial origin or mesenchymal origin. The main differences between epithelial tumors and mesenchymal tumors include : 1) the tumor cells in epithelial tumors are oval, round to polygonal, while those in mesenchymal tumors are in general spindle-shaped : 2) epithelial tumors generally form tumor cell nests, while mesenchymal tumors arrange diffusely without forming tumor cell nests : 3) in epithelial tumors, desmoplastic stroma is well formed in between tumor cell nests, while in mesenchymal tumors there is no desmoplastic stroma ; and lastly, 4) feeding vessels open in the stroma in epithelial tumors, while they open between tumor cells in mesenchymal tumors. After this one should decide whether the tumor is benign or malignant. The differences between benign and malignant tumors include : 1) differentiation ; 2) growth rate ; 3) growth pattern ; and 4) metastasis. The benign tumor is well differentiated, grows slowly, shows an expansile growth pattern with encapsulation, and does not metastasize. On the other hand, the malignant tumor is in general poorly differentiated, grows rapidly with frequent mitoses, shows an invasive growth pattern without capsular formation, and frequently metastasizes. In general malignant tumors show a high cellularity, tumor necrosis, and nuclear alterations, which include nuclear enlargement with a high nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio, hyperchromatism, pleomorphism, prominent nucleolus, and frequent mitoses. The final step is to classify the type of tumor based on the cellular differentiation and gross and microscopic growth patterns based on the light microscopic examination of H & E stained slides. For the correct identification of the tumor, immunostaining, electron microscopic evaluation, and molecular diagnostic tools may be required. After establishment of a diagnosis of malignancy, one should think about the prognostic factors. The two well-known prognostic factors (category I) applicable in almost all tumors include stage and grade. Therefore, information about the stage and grade should also be included in the pathology report.

References

1. Cotran RS, Kumar V, Collins T. Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease 1999. 6th edth ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 260–327.
2. Lieberman MW, Lebovitz RM. Chapter 24, neoplasia. Anderson's Pathology 1996. 10th edth ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 513–547.
3. Beckwith JB. Wilms' tumor and other renal tumors of childhood : a selective review from the National Wilms' Tumor Study Pathology Center. Hum Pathol 1983. 14481–492.
4. Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1982. 6655–663.
5. Hammond ME, Fitzgibbons PL, Compton CC, Grignon DJ, Page DL, Pajak TF, et al. Cancer Committee and Conference Participants. College of American Pathologists Conference XXXV: solid tumor prognostic factors-which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000. 124958–965.
6. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG, Balch CM, Morrow M, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 2002. 6th edth ed. Springer;
7. Giacomarra V, Tirelli G, Papanikolla L, Bussani R. Predictive factors of nodal metastases in oral cavity and oropharynx carcinomas. Laryngoscope 1999. 109795–959.
8. Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, Ghafoor A, Ward E, Thun MJ, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2003. CA 2003. 535–26.
9. Black MM, Speer FD. Nuclear grade in cancer tissues. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1957. 10597–102.

Article information Continued

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Table 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 2

Table 3

Table 3

Table 4

Table 4

Table 5

Table 5

Table 6

Table 6

Table 7

Table 7

Table 8

Table 8