• American Joint Committee on Cancer

Summary of Changes

Micrometastases are distinguished from isolated tumor cells on the basis of size and histologic evidence of malignant activity.

Identifiers have been added to indicate the use of sentinel lymph node dissection and immunohistochemical or molecular techniques.

Major classifications of lymph node status are designated according to the number of involved axillary lymph nodes as determined by routine hematoxylin and eosin staining (preferred method) or by immunohistochemical staining.

The classification of metastasis to the infraclavicular lymph nodes has been added as N3.

Metastasis to the internal mammary nodes, based on the method of detection and the presence or absence of axillary nodal involvement, has been reclassified. Microscopic involvement of the internal mammary nodes detected by sentinel lymph node dissection using lymphoscintigraphy but not by imaging studies or clinical examination is classified as N1. Macroscopic involvement of the internal mammary nodes as detected by imaging studies (excluding lymphoscintigraphy) or by clinical examination is classified as N2 if it occurs in the absence of metastases to the axillary lymph nodes or as N3 if it occurs in the presence of metastases to the axillary lymph nodes.

Metastasis to the supraclavicular lymph nodes has been reclassified as N3 rather than M1.


Breast Cancer Sentinel Lymph Node Axillary Lymph Node American Joint Committee Isolate Tumor Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Page DL, Kidd TE, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Rogers LW: Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol; 22:1232–1239, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histologic grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. His-topathology 19:403–410, 1991Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, et al: Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124:966–978, 2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hansemann von D: Uber assymetrische zelltheilung in epi-thelkrebsen und deren biologische bedeutung. Virchows Arch Pathol Anat 119:299–326, 1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenough RB: Varying degrees of malignancy in cancer of the breast. J Cancer Res 9:452–463, 1925Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloom HJG, Richardson WW. Histologic grading and prognosis in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 9:359–377, 1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S, et al: Prognostic value of histologic grade nuclear components of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR): an improved score modification based on multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 64:1914–1921, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henson DE, Ries L, Freedman LS, Carriaga M: Relationship among outcome, stage of disease, and histologic grade for 22,616 cases of breast cancer. Cancer 68:2142–2149, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neville AM, Bettelheim R, Gelber RD, et al: Factors predicting treatment responsiveness and prognosis in node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 10:696–705, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delides GS, Garas G, Georgouli G, et al: Intralaboratory variations in the grading of breast carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 106:126–128, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stenkvist B, Bengtsson E, Eriksson O, et al: Histopathological systems of breast cancer classification: reproducibility and clinical significance. J Clin Pathol 36:392–398, 1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilchrist KW, Kalish L, Gould VE, et al: Interobserver reproducibility of histopathological features in Stage II breast cancer: an ECOG study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 5:3–10, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harvey JM, de Klerk NH, Sterrett GH: Histologic grading in breast cancer: interobserver agreement, and relation to other prognostic factors including ploidy. Pathology 24:63–68, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lundin J, Lundin M, Holli K, et al: Omission of histologic grading from clinical decision making may result in overuse of adjuvant therapies in breast cancer: results from a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol 19:28–36, 2001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD: Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer 73:2765–2770, 1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frierson HF, Wolber RA, Berean KW, et al: Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 103:195–198, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, et al: Histologic grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 26:873–879, 1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Genestie C, Zafrani B, Asselain B, et al: Comparison of the prognostic value of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson and Nottingham histologic grades in a series of 825 cases of breast cancer: major importance of the mitotic count as a component of both grading systems. Anticancer Res 18:571–576, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donhuijsen K, Schmidt U, Hirche H, et al: Changes in mitotic rate and cell cycle fractions caused by delayed fixation. Hum Pathol 21:709–714, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cross SS, Start RD, Smith JHF: Does delay in fixation affect the number of mitotic figures in processed tissue? J Clin Pathol 43:597–599, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Start RD, Flynn MS, Cross SS, et al: Is the grading of breast carcinomas affected by a delay in fixation? Virch Arch A Pathol Anat 419:475–477, 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosen PP, Groshen S, Saigo PE, et al: Pathological prognostic factors in Stage I (T1N0M0) and Stage II (T1N1M0) breast carcinoma: a study of 644 patients with median follow-up of 18 years. J Clin Oncol 7:1239–1251, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosner D, Lane WW: Should all patients with node-negative breast cancer receive adjuvant therapy? Cancer 68:1482–1494, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kollias J, Murphy CA, Elston CW, et al: The prognosis of small primary breast cancers. Eur J Cancer 35:908–912, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leitner SP, Swern AS, Weinberger D, et al: Predictors of recurrence for patients with small (one centimeter or less) localized breast cancer (T1a,bN0M0). Cancer 76:2266–2274, 1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reed W, Hannisdal E, Boehler PJ, et al: The prognostic value of p53 and c-erb B-2 immunostaining is overrated for patients with lymph node negative breast cancer. Cancer 88:804–813, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Czerniecki BH, Scheff AM, Callans LS, et al: Immunohis-tochemistry with pancytokeratins improves the sensitivity of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 1089–1103, 1999Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Trojani M, de Mascarel I, Bonichon F, et al: Micrometastases to axillary lymph nodes from carcinoma of breast: detection by immunohistochemistry and prognostic significance. Br J Cancer 55:303–306, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Senmak DD, Meineke TA, Knechtges DS, Anderson J. Prognostic significance of cytokeratin-positive breast cancer metastases. Mod Pathol 2:516–520, 1989Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen ZL, Wen DR, Coulson WF, et al: Occult metastases in the axillary lymph nodes of patients with breast cancer node negative by clinical and histologic examination and conventional histology. Dis Markers 9:238–248, 1991Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Mascarel I, Bonichon F, Coindre JM, et al: Prognostic significance of breast cancer axillary lymph node micrometastases assessed by two special techniques: re-evaluation with longer follow-up. Br J Cancer 66:523–527, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hainsworth PI, Tjandra JJ, Stillwell RG, et al: Detection and significance of occult metastases in node-negative breast cancer. Br J Surg 80:459–463, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Clare SE, Sener SF, Wilkens W, et al: Prognostic significance of occult lymph node metastases in node-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 4:447–451, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hermanek P, Hutter RVP, Sobin LH, Wittekind C: Classification of isolated tumor cells and micrometastasis. Cancer 86:2668–2673, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huvos AG, Hutter RVP, Berg JW: Significance of axillary macrometastases and micrometastases in mammary cancer. Ann Surg 173:44–46, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Verbanac KM, Fleming TP, Min CH, et al: RT-PCR increases detection of breast cancer sentinel lymph node micrometastases. [Abstract 125]. 22nd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 1999Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE: Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 63:181–187, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani RN, et al: Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer 45:2917–2924, 1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paik S, Bryant J, Park C, et al: erbB-2 and response to doxorubicin in patients with axillary lymph node-positive, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1361–1370, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Crump M, Goss PE, Prince M, Girouard C: Outcome of extensive evaluation before adjuvant therapy in women with breast cancer and 10 or more positive axillary lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 14:66–69, 1996PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Diab SG, Hilsenbeck SG, de Moor C, et al: Radiation therapy and survival in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive axillary lymph nodes treated with mastectomy. J Clin Oncol 16:1655–1660, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fountzilas G, Nicolaides C, Aravantinos G, et al: Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy with epirubicin monotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer and > 10 positive axillary lymph nodes: a feasibility study. Oncology 55:508–12, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Veronesi U, Marubini E, Mariani L, et al: The dissection of internal mammary nodes does not improve the survival of breast cancer patients: 30-year results of a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer 35:1320–1325, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bucalossi P, Veronesi U, Zingo L, Cantu C: Enlarged mastectomy for breast cancer: review of 1,213 cases. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 111:119–122, 1971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Caceres E: An evaluation of radical mastectomy and extended radical mastectomy for cancer of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstetrics 123:337–241, 1967Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Li KYY, Shen Z-Z: An analysis of 1,242 cases of extended radical mastectomy. Breast, Diseases of the Breast 10:10–19, 1984Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Urban JA, Marjani MA: Significance of internal mammary lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 111:130–136, 1971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Bufalino R, et al: Risk of internal mammary lymph node metastases and its relevance on prognosis of breast cancer patients. Ann Surg 198:681–684, 1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Halsted WS: The results of radical operations for the cure of cancer of the breast. Ann Surg 46:1–5, 1907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Debois JM: The significance of a supraclavicular node metastasis in patients with breast cancer: a literature review. Strahlenther Onkol 173:1–12, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    AJCC cancer staging manual, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippin-cott-Raven, 1997Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brito RA, Valero W, Buzdar AU, et al: Long-term results of combined-modality therapy for locally advanced breast cancer with ipsilateral supraclavicular metastases: The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. J Clin Oncol 19:628–633, 2001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology: Clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:2843–2877, 1996Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology: 1997 Update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:793–795, 1998Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • American Joint Committee on Cancer
    • 1
  1. 1.Executive OfficeChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations