You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Breast pathology today: morphology and molecules
  1. Emad A Rakha1,
  2. Sandra A O'Toole2,
  3. Ian O Ellis1,
  4. Puay Hoon Tan3
  1. 1Department of Pathology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Department of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
  1. Correspondence to Dr Puay Hoon Tan, Department of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169608, Singapore; tan.puay.hoon{at}sgh.com.sg

https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2013-201660

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    This theme issue on breast pathology is a blend of articles of relevance for today's diagnostic practice that focuses on morphological recognition and classification of breast tumours, integration with molecular features and contribution to management decisions. The molecular reviews open the window into a future where scientific investigations into pathogenesis and biology of breast disease can be potentially translated into effective therapeutics for women with breast cancer.

    Classification of breast tumours remains a mainstay of pathological assessment. In light of the recent publication of the 4th edition of WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast in 2012,1 an update is provided of specific entities of myoepithelial, epithelial–myoepithelial, mesenchymal and fibroepithelial lesions.2 Key changes concerning these conditions emanating from the prior edition, and the rationale behind some of the revisions are summarised. Apart from emergent data …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the editorial.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.