Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. Dikshit, S. Eser, C. Mathers, M. Rebelo, D. Parkin, D. Forman, F. Bray (2015)
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012International Journal of Cancer, 136
Samuel Magny, Rachel Shikhman, Ana Keppke (2020)
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data SystemDefinitions
M. Koker, C. Kleer (2004)
p63 Expression in Breast Cancer: A Highly Sensitive and Specific Marker of Metaplastic CarcinomaThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 28
D. Zaha (2014)
Significance of immunohistochemistry in breast cancer.World journal of clinical oncology, 5 3
MM Koker, CG Kleer (2004)
p63 expression in breast cancer: a highly sensitive and specific marker of metaplastic carcinomaAm J Surg Pathol, 28
Xiaojuan Wang, I. Mori, Wei-hua Tang, Misa Nakamura, Yasushi Nakamura, Misako Sato, T. Sakurai, K. Kakudo (2002)
P63 expression in normal, hyperplastic and malignant breast tissuesBreast Cancer, 9
I. Sechopoulos, D. Rogers, M. Bazalova-Carter, W. Bolch, E. Heath, M. McNitt-Gray, J. Sempau, J. Williamson (2018)
RECORDS: improved Reporting of montE CarlO RaDiation transport Studies: Report of the AAPM Research Committee Task Group 268.Medical physics, 45 1
S. Kim, W. Jung, J. Koo (2014)
p40 (ΔNp63) expression in breast disease and its correlation with p63 immunohistochemistry.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 7 3
Yu-Mee Sohn, Kyunghwa Han, M. Seo (2016)
Immunohistochemical Subtypes of Breast Cancer: Correlation with Clinicopathological and Radiological FactorsIranian Journal of Radiology, 13
J. Reis-Filho, F. Schmitt (2002)
Taking Advantage of Basic Research: p63 Is a Reliable Myoepithelial and Stem Cell MarkerAdvances in Anatomic Pathology, 9
R. Kamarlis, Muhammad Lubis, B. Hernowo, H. Harapan, Azmi Kar (2017)
Immunoexpression of P63 and SOX2 in triple-negative breast cancers, Indonesia.F1000Research, 6
A. Batistatou, D. Stefanou, E. Arkoumani, N. Agnantis (2003)
The usefulness of p63 as a marker of breast myoepithelial cells.In vivo, 17 6
I. Sechopoulos (2013)
A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process.Medical physics, 40 1
H. Peppard, Brandi Nicholson, Carrie Rochman, Judith Merchant, R. Mayo, J. Harvey (2015)
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Indications and Clinical Applications.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc, 35 4
R. Werling, H. Hwang, H. Yaziji, A. Gown (2003)
Immunohistochemical Distinction of Invasive From Noninvasive Breast Lesions: A Comparative Study of p63 Versus Calponin and Smooth Muscle Myosin Heavy ChainThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 27
Martine Boisserie-Lacroix, G. Hurtevent-Labrot, S. Ferron, N. Lippa, H. Bonnefoi, H. Bonnefoi, G. Grogan (2013)
Correlation between imaging and molecular classification of breast cancers.Diagnostic and interventional imaging, 94 11
Treasure Island (FL)
R. Walker (2007)
Immunohistochemical markers as predictive tools for breast cancerJournal of Clinical Pathology, 61
N. Tyagi (2017)
Diagnostic Accuracy of mammography Versus Distribution of p63 in Fine Needle Aspiration of Breast MalignanciesIOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences, 16
D. Stefanou, A. Batistatou, A. Nonni, E. Arkoumani, Niki Agnantis (2004)
p63 expression in benign and malignant breast lesions.Histology and histopathology, 19 2
Mammography is considered to be the gold standard for screening and detection of breast malignancies. Among different biochemical markers used to detect carcinoma of breasts, p63 has been widely popularized for its effectiveness in the detection of myoepithelial cells which are an important indicator of breast benignity. In this study, we plan to statistically analyze and correlate the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 subcategories grading on mammogram imaging with p63 immunostaining. A total of 80 patients were taken into the study within a period of two years (2016–2018) after ensuring the inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were further sorted into different BI-RADS 4 subcategories, i.e., taking into consideration X-ray mammogram and tomosynthesis findings, 57 samples were categorized as low suspicion (BI-RADS 4A), while 12 were classified as intermediate (BI-RADS 4B), and the remaining 11 samples were categorized as highly suspicious (BI-RADS 4C). Although considered to be leaning toward malignancy, a BI-RADS reading of 4 (namely 4A—low suspicion, 4B—moderate suspicion, and 4C—high suspicion for malignancy) needs further evaluation for accurate diagnosis. There have been cases within our own observation where a lesion that is highly suspicious of malignancy has turned out to be a benign finding. Further, evaluating the expression of a p63 marker can help prevent mutilating surgeries for indeterminate lesions. The present study has been conducted to study the correlation of tomosynthesis grading of lesions that has been categorized from low-to-high suspicion, with a p63 immunostaining pattern in these lesions.
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 1, 2022
Keywords: BI-RADS 4; p63; Immunohistochemistry; Malignancy; Myoepithelial
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.