PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15113444

Tumor classification: molecular analysis meets Aristotle.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, tumors have been classified by their morphologic appearances. Unfortunately, tumors with similar histologic features often follow different clinical courses or respond differently to chemotherapy. Limitations in the clinical utility of morphology-based tumor classifications have prompted a search for a new tumor classification based on molecular analysis. Gene expression array data and proteomic data from tumor samples will provide complex data that is unobtainable from morphologic examination alone. The growing question facing cancer researchers is, "How can we successfully integrate the molecular, morphologic and clinical characteristics of human cancer to produce a helpful tumor classification?" DISCUSSION: Current efforts to classify cancers based on molecular features ignore lessons learned from millennia of experience in biological classification. A tumor classification must include every type of tumor and must provide a unique place for each tumor within the classification. Groups within a classification inherit the properties of their ancestors and impart properties to their descendants. A classification was prepared grouping tumors according to their histogenetic development. The classification is simple (reducing the complexity of information received from the molecular analysis of tumors), comprehensive (providing a place for every tumor of man), and consistent with recent attempts to characterize tumors by cytogenetic and molecular features. The clinical and research value of this historical approach to tumor classification is discussed. SUMMARY: This manuscript reviews tumor classification and provides a new and comprehensive classification for neoplasia that preserves traditional nomenclature while incorporating information derived from the molecular analysis of tumors. The classification is provided as an open access XML document that can be used by cancer researchers to relate tumor classes with heterogeneous experimental and clinical tumor databases.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jules J Berman. 2004-03-17. Tumor classification: molecular analysis meets Aristotle.. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-4-10

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Germ cell tumours of the testis.

Cancer of the testis is a relatively rare disease, accounting for about 1% of all cancers in men. Cryptorchidism is the only confirmed risk factor for testicular germ cell tumour. The majority of GCT are clinically detectable at initial presentation. Any nodular, hard, or fixed area discovered in the testis, must be considered neoplastic until proved otherwise. The appropriate surgical procedure to make the diagnosis is a radical orchidectomy through an inguinal incision. Many GCT produce tumoural markers (AFP, HCG, LDH), who are useful in the diagnosis and staging of disease; to monitor the therapeutic response and to detect tumour recurrence. In 1997 a prognostic factor-based classification for the metastatic germ cell tumours was developed by the IGCCCG: good, intermediate and poor prognosis, with 5-year survival of 91, 79 and 48%, respectively. GCT of the testis is a highly table, often curable, cancer. Germ cell testicular cancers are divided into seminoma and non-seminoma types for treatment planning because seminomatous testicular cancers are more sensitive to radiotherapy. Seminoma (all stages combined) has a cure rate of greater than 90%. For patients with low-stage disease, the cure approaches 100%. For patients with non-seminoma tumours, the cure rate is >95% in stages I and II; it is approximately 70% with standard chemotherapy and resection of residual disease, if necessary, in stages III and IV. Minimum guidelines for clinical, biochemical, and radiological follow-up have been reported by ESMO in 2001.

Germinoma↗

Repeat retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in advanced testicular cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Repeat retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for the treatment of metastatic testicular cancer is an uncommonly performed procedure. We evaluated the location, pathohistological results, postoperative complications and therapeutic outcome in 17 patients being referred for repeat RPLND after failure of the primary retroperitoneal approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 18 patients underwent repeat RPLND after failed primary RPLND or residual tumour resection. We retrospectively analyzed preoperative patient characteristics, operative and pathohistological data from primary and repeat RPLND, morbidity and oncological outcome after surgery. RESULTS: All patients had nonseminomatous primaries with metastatic retroperitoneal lymph nodes; 4 and 14 patients had undergone primary RPLND and residual tumor resection (RTR), respectively, for metastatic testicular cancer. Prior to repeat RPLND all patients had undergone 4 cycles of salvage chemotherapy for locoregional recurrences only with negative tumour markers at time of surgery. All patients demonstrated residual masses requiring repeat RPLND. Retroperitoneal recurrences were located at multiple sites: retrocaval area with infiltration of the vena cava, interaortocaval and paraaortic region, retrocrural space, suprahilar region, outfield metastases in the iliac region. Two cases required resection of the vena cava due to infiltration, in one case an aortic graft and an iliac graft was necessary due to tumour infiltration of the adventitial layer of the vessels; nephrectomy and resection of the sigmoid was required in another 2 patients. The most significant complication was chylous ascites 1 and prolonged paralytic ileus in 1 patient. Pathohistological examination of the resected specimen revealed viable germ cell tumour elements in 4 patients (22.2%), necrosis/fibrosis in 8 patients (44.4%) and mature teratoma in 6 patients (33.3%). At a mean follow-up of 22 (1-45) months, the disease specific survival rate was 89% with significant differences between patients with necrosis (100%), mature teratoma (85%) and viable cancer (50%). CONCLUSION: Recurrences after RPLND usually reflect inadequate primary surgery especially in the retrocaval and suprahilar region. Repeat RPLND is safe and effective in the majority of patients; however, it requires careful preoperative planning with regard to potential involvement of adjacent vascular and visceral structures making close interdisciplinary collaboration necessary in many cases. Repeat RPLND is a mandatory surgery to be performed at centres of expertise.

Germinoma↗