TABLE OF CONTENTS
This web site is based on the workshop given from October 1 to 5 on Modelling
Human Breast Cancer in Mouse at the Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine.
The goal of the workshop was to introduce the student to the rudiments of
histopathology of the mammary gland of genetically engineered mice (GEM).
The subsequent tutorial given on October 7, 1999 at the conference on Modelling
Human Breast Cancer in Mouse was modified to meet the needs of the investigators.
The student were introduced to the basic techniques, stains and nomenclature
of pathology and to the diagnostic schemata recommended by the Annapolis
Pathology Panel. The different concepts and terms were illustrated by a
slide set of twelve mammary tumors demonstrating nine different stains.
These sets were supplemented with this laboratory syllabus, microscopic
demonstrations, illustrative example images and discussions with the instructor.
Learning Objectives: As a result of attending and participating in this
tutorial and laboratory, the student should be able to dissect that mammary
glands of a mouse, sample and prepare lesions properly for fixation, chose
the proper fixative, understand the processing techniques used, fill out
the synoptic Request Forms, understand
the diagnostic terminology of pathology, carry
out the basic microscopic examination of their tissues, and interact with
the pathologists on their team.
The slide sets used in this course are from your instructors Archives.
A special thanks is extended to Drs. Muller, Seldin and Leder for generously
donating their samples. The recommendations, illustrations, tables and forms
were developed with the Annapolis Pathology
Panel and will appear in the journal Oncogene in early 2000. The Annapolis
Pathology Panel was convened in March and July, 1999. The Annapolis Pathology
Panel included three surgical, three veterinary and three experimental pathologists.
They were asked to examine the histopathology of GEM
mammary glands and to compare the models with human breast cancer. The GEM
tumors were found to have; (i) phenotypes similar to those of non-GEM,
(ii) signature phenotypes specific to the transgene,
and (iii) some morphological similarities
to the human disease. The current mouse mammary and human breast tumor
classifications describe the majority of GEM lesions but unique morphologic
lesions are found in many GEM. Since little information is available on
the natural history of GEM lesions, a simple morphologic nomenclature was
proposed that allows direct comparisons between models.
The recommendations of the Pathology
Panel can be summarized as below:
You will be amongst the first to have the opportunity to
learn and apply the Annapolis Nomenclature.
The slide set contains three slides with four samples on each slide.
Slide 1 has examples of signature lesions
of PyV-mT, myc and erbB2. The four samples allow the student to compare
and contrast the different signature lesions. The two examples of myc-type
tumors permit observation of different myc tissue patterns while retaining
the basic myc type cytology. Slide 2 contains
four lesions that are typical of spontaneous tumors induced by MMTV. However,
two of the lesions were induced by a transgene rather than the virus. Slide 3 has four examples of GSK mice from
Dr. David Seldin showing some patterns typical of transgenic animals and
showing the variations sometimes seen in some transgenic systems.
Back to the top
2.3. 99-0868(MTV-Type A tumor)
2.4. 99-0869(MTV -Type B tumor)
Back to the top