Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with varied morphological appearances, molecular features, behavior, and response to therapy. Current routine clinical management of breast cancer relies on the availability of robust clinical and pathological prognostic and predictive factors to support clinical and patient decision making in which potentially suitable treatment options are increasingly available. One of the best-established prognostic factors in breast cancer is histological grade, which represents the morphological assessment of tumor biological characteristics and has been shown to be able to generate important information related to the clinical behavior of breast cancers. Genome-wide microarray-based expression profiling studies have unraveled several characteristics of breast cancer biology and have provided further evidence that the biological features captured by histological grade are important in determining tumor behavior. Also, expression profiling studies have generated clinically useful data that have significantly improved our understanding of the biology of breast cancer, and these studies are undergoing evaluation as improved prognostic and predictive tools in clinical practice. Clinical acceptance of these molecular assays will require them to be more than expensive surrogates of established traditional factors such as histological grade. It is essential that they provide additional prognostic or predictive information above and beyond that offered by current parameters. Here, we present an analysis of the validity of histological grade as a prognostic factor and a consensus view on the significance of histological grade and its role in breast cancer classification and staging systems in this era of emerging clinical use of molecular classifiers.

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease encompassing a variety of entities with distinct morphological features and clinical behaviors. Although morphology is often associated with the pattern of molecular aberrations in breast cancers, it is also clear that tumors of the same histological type show remarkably different clinical behavior. This is particularly true for ‘basal-like cancer’, which is an entity defined using gene expression analysis. The purpose of this article was to review the current state of knowledge of basal-like breast cancers, to discuss the relationship between basal-like and triple-negative breast cancers, and to clarify practical implications of these diagnoses for pathologists and oncologists.

Background and Aim: The study of CD44/CD24 and ALDH1 expression is the most accurate method to identify cancer stem cells (CSC) from breast cancer populations. However, the overlap between CD44⁺CD24^−/low and ALDH1^high CSC phenotypes in breast cancer seems to be very small, as well as their distribution among intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. Due to this discrepancy, it is imperative to improve the understanding of breast CSC marker distribution. Methods: 466 invasive breast carcinomas and eight breast cancer cell lines were analysed for the expression of CD44, CD24 and ALDH1, to evaluate their distribution among the distinct molecular subtypes. Results: Basal-like tumours (76.5%) contained the higher percentage of cells with the CSC phenotype CD44⁺CD24^−/low (p<0.0001). From ALDH1-positive cases, 39.4% were also basal-like tumours (p<0.0001). The analysis of breast cancer cell lines indicated that luminal cell lines are mainly enriched in a CD44^−/lowCD24⁺ cell population, basal/mesenchymal breast cancer cell lines are enriched in the CD44⁺CD24^−/low phenotype, whereas the remaining basal/epithelial cell lines are mainly positive for both markers. ALDH1 activity was mainly found in HER-OE and basal/epithelial breast cancer cell. Conclusions: CD44⁺CD24^−/low and ALDH1⁺ phenotypes seem to identify CSC with distinct levels of differentiation. It seems that the paramount method and biomarkers that identify breast CSC within the distinct molecular subtypes need to be better explored, because it is pivotal to translate the CSC concept to clinical practice. In the future, the recognition of reliable markers to distinguish the CSC pool in each molecular subtype will be decisive for the development of specific target therapies.

Basal-like breast cancers form a distinct subtype of breast cancer characterized by the expression of markers expressed in normal basal/myoepithelial cells. Breast cancers arising in carriers of germline BRCA1 mutations are predominately of basal-like type, suggesting that BRCA1 dysfunction may play a role in the pathogenesis of sporadic basal-like cancers. We analysed 37 sporadic breast cancers expressing the basal marker cytokeratin 5/6, and age- and grade-matched controls, for downregulation of BRCA1. Although BRCA1 promoter methylation was no more common in basal-like cancers (basal 14% vs controls 11%, P=0.72), BRCA1 messenger RNA expression was twofold lower in basal-like breast cancers compared to matched controls (P=0.008). ID4, a negative regulator of BRCA1, was expressed at 9.1-fold higher levels in basal-like breast cancer (P<0.0001), suggesting a potential mechanism of BRCA1 downregulation. BRCA1 downregulation correlated with the presence of multiple basal markers, revealing heterogeneity in the basal-like phenotype. Finally, we found that 63% of metaplastic breast cancers, a rare type of basal-like cancers, had BRCA1 methylation, in comparison to 12% of controls (P<0.0001). The high prevalence of BRCA1 dysfunction identified in this study could be exploited in the development of novel approaches to targeted treatment of basal-like breast cancer.

With the widespread use of sensitive imaging techniques, which include neck visualization, a conspicuous number of thyroid nodules emerge and demand attention. Most lesions are benign, asymptomatic, and do not warrant treatment. In the case of cancer diagnosis, most are small, intrathyroidal and indolent neoplasms that can safely be managed conservatively. There is a pronounced need for more cost-effective, risk-adapted approaches to the management of this highly prevalent condition, taking the wishes of the patient into consideration. Thus, the present guidelines aim at providing a clinical practice guide for the initial workup and the subsequent management of adult individuals harboring thyroid nodules. Importantly, these guidelines are not intended to cover the management of thyroid malignancy. The manuscript and the specific recommendations were developed by reconciling the best available research evidence with the knowledge and clinical experience of the panelists and updating aspects of a number of previous European Thyroid Association guidelines.