10 Shattuck St, Boston MA 02115 | (617) 432-2136
| |
Copyright © 2020 President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.
Question Is there a common pattern of symptom combinations across mental disorders?
Finding This cross-sectional study found a specific pattern across 4 empirical samples (N = 155 474), with 41.7% to 99.8% of symptom combinations being reported by less than 1% of the sample, while the 1% most frequent combinations were highly prevalent in 33.1% to 78.6% of the corresponding sample. Because of the interdependence of a disorder’s symptoms, not all symptom combinations are equally likely.
Meaning Polythetic definitions lead to a common pattern of symptom heterogeneity: the presence of few prototypical and many atypical symptom combinations.
Importance DSM criteria are polythetic, allowing for heterogeneity of symptoms among individuals with the same disorder. In empirical research, most combinations were not found or only rarely found, prompting criticism of this heterogeneity.
Objective To elaborate how symptom-based definitions and assessments contribute to a distinct probability pattern for the occurrence of symptom combinations.
Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study involved a theoretical argument, simulation, and secondary data analysis of 4 preexisting datasets, each consisting of symptoms from 1 of the following syndromes: posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety. Data were obtained from various sources, including the National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive and Department of Veteran Affairs. A total of 155 474 participants were included (individual studies were 3930 to 63 742 individuals in size). Data were analyzed between July 2021 and January 2024.
Exposure For each participant, the presence or absence of each assessed symptom and their combination was determined. The number of all combinations and their individual frequencies were assessed.
Main Outcome and Measure Probability or frequency of unique symptom combinations and their distribution.
Results Among the 155 474 participants, the mean (SD) age was 47.5 (14.8) years; 33 933 (21.8%) self-identified as female and 121 541 (78.2%) as male. Because of the interrelation between symptoms, some symptom combinations were significantly more likely than others. The distribution of the combinations’ probability was heavily skewed with most combinations having a very low probability. Across all 4 empirical samples, the 1% most common combinations were prevalent in a total of 33.1% to 78.6% of the corresponding sample. At the same time, many combinations (ranging from 41.7% to 99.8%) were reported by less than 1% of the sample.
Conclusions and Relevance This study found that within-disorder symptom heterogeneity followed a specific pattern consisting of few prevalent, prototypical combinations and numerous combinations with a very low probability of occurrence. Future discussions about the revision of diagnostic criteria should take this specific pattern into account by focusing not only on the absolute number of symptom combinations but also on their individual and cumulative probabilities. Findings from clinical populations using common diagnostic criteria may have limited generalizability to the large group of individuals with a low-probability symptom combination.
Spiller TR , Duek O , Helmer M, et al. Unveiling the Structure in Mental Disorder Presentations. JAMA Psychiatry. Published online August 07, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2047
© 2024
Artificial Intelligence Resource Center
Psychiatry in JAMA : Read the Latest
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Select your interests.
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
You’re giving a talk tips for avoiding the goosebumps.
Do you have glossophobia?
That’s a fear of public speaking, a phobia believed to affect up to 75% of the population.
The physical symptoms range from slight nervousness and brain freeze to trembling, sweating, rapid heartbeat, and full-on panic.
For most people, fear of public speaking is not a hindrance because their work doesn’t require speeches or presentations. But if your profession places value on speaking skills, you’d be smart to be strategic about developing your capacity.
The ability to persuade an audience is an important trademark of a leader. My early career experience as a speechwriter and communication coach (for cabinet officers in two White House administrations as well as for C-suite executives in many corporations) provided some key take-aways.
Let’s zero in on those last two points.
The act of writing your “script” will help you explore your material and select precise wording. Focus on vocabulary you’re comfortable using. Choose words that have impact. Use short sentences. Provide evidence to support your key points. In your closing, repeat the points you want your audience to remember. Edit your draft carefully. Remove redundancies and cut out material that clutters rather than illuminates.
Trump vs. harris 2024 polls: harris expands lead in latest survey, musk-trump x interview: trump takes friendly questions from musk after glitch-plagued start.
Does that sound like work? It is! And if you do it right, your investment of time and effort will pay big dividends.
Think about it: musicians, athletes and other professional invest much more time training than in performing. So why would you expect to successfully prepare and deliver a speech without paying the price?
Years ago, I was coaching a business executive who was scheduled to speak at his company’s annual shareholders meeting. He was nervous about the assignment and displayed all the symptoms of glossophobia. I was videotaping his practice session.
Before he started his speech, I asked the man about his new cell phone he’d put on the table beside the podium. He launched into an animated description of all the phone’s features, how it saved him time, enabled him to stay in touch with his staff, and even take photos of his grandchildren. His spirited narrative about his new phone was worthy of a prime-time TV commercial.
Then he transitioned into his speech for the shareholders meeting.
What the man didn’t realize was that the videotape was running the entire time. When I played the whole thing back for him, he was astonished. It was as though two completely different people had been in front of the camera. He was comfortable and animated when carrying on about his new phone. But when he started his speech, it was as though someone had flipped an invisible switch. Suddenly he was stiff and awkward. His script was crammed with “corporatespeak”—tired phrases often found in legal documents rather than in natural conversation. No wonder the man was uncomfortable. He was trying to give a speech that didn’t remotely sound the way he would normally talk.
When the man re-worked his script to sound like real talk, his practice sessions were much more comfortable and his appearance at the shareholders meeting was a success.
Consider these tips when preparing your next talk.
1. Plan. Determine the best approach to your topic. Plan to address this topic in a way that will benefit your entire audience. (Remember that your listeners may have widely different backgrounds in terms of education, age, experience, etc.)
2. Organize: List the points you want to cover. Then sift and re-arrange these into no more than three or four main ideas, putting all the rest under these as sub-ideas. Effective introductory material usually (a) establishes a bond of common interest with your listeners, (b) identifies your topic and purpose and their importance to the audience, and (c) mentions the main points to be discussed in the talk. The effective conclusion is usually a brief summary of what you’ve said, with a final statement of the basic message you want your listeners to retain … or the belief you want them to have … or the action you want them to take.
3. Develop: Make notes. Gather material. Then select the necessary “evidence”— research, quotations, comparisons, anecdotes, etc.—to support and develop your points throughout the talk.
4. Practice: Condense your material to a simple outline. Practice delivering your talk aloud . Keep your delivery conversational and natural. (Typically, you’re talking to friends.) Time yourself. If you’ve been asked to talk for 15 minutes and your outline requires 17, trim it by at least three or four minutes. Then practice some more. The more you practice (a little bit every day over a period of several days), the more comfortable you’ll be.
Speech time is precious time. People attend a meeting to be instructed or even inspired. Ponder this: If you address an audience of, say, 150 people for 15 minutes, you’ve used a total of 37.5 hours! (15 minutes x 150 = 2,250 minutes or 37.5 hours)
You can do this! Invest the effort in honing your speaking skills and you’ll significantly enhance your value in the marketplace of ideas.
One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.
Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.
In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.
Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:
User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:
So, how can you be a power user?
Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.
APA Style uses two types of capitalization for titles of works (such as paper titles ) and headings within works : title case and sentence case .
In title case, major words are capitalized, and most minor words are lowercase. In sentence case, most major and minor words are lowercase ( proper nouns are an exception in that they are always capitalized).
Title case capitalization is covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 6.17 and the Concise Guide Section 5.7
In title case, capitalize the following words in a title or heading:
Lowercase only minor words that are three letters or fewer in a title or heading (except the first word in a title or subtitle or the first word after a colon, em dash, or end punctuation in a heading):
Use title case for the following:
In the book Train Your Mind for Peak Performance: A Science-Based Approach for Achieving Your Goals
In the article “Turning Frowns (and Smiles) Upside Down: A Multilevel Examination of Surface Acting Positive and Negative Emotions on Well-Being”
Beck Depression Inventory–II
the Results section
Journal of Latinx Psychology
Chicago Tribune
BMC Cancer volume 24 , Article number: 992 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
Metrics details
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) was first proposed as an entity by Fisher et al. In the 2003 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for histologic classification of the breast tumors. IMPC was recognized as a distinct, rare histological subtype of breast cancer.
IMPC is emerging as a surgical and oncological challenge due to its tendency to manifest as a palpable mass, larger in size and higher in grade than IDC with more rate of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and lymph node (LN) involvement, which changes the surgical and adjuvant management plans to more aggressive, with comparative prognosis still being a point of ongoing debate.
In this study, we compared the clinicopathological characteristics, survival and surgical management of breast cancer patients having invasive micropapillary carcinoma pathological subtype in comparison to those having invasive duct carcinoma.
This is a comparative study on female patients presented to Baheya center for early detection and treatment of breast cancer, in the period from 2015 to 2022 diagnosed with breast cancer of IMPC subtype in one group compared with another group of invasive duct carcinoma. we analyzed 138 cases of IMPC and 500 cases of IDC.
The incidence of LVI in the IMPC group was 88.3% in comparison to 47.0% in the IDC group (p < 0.001). IMPC had a higher incidence of lymph node involvement than the IDC group (68.8% and 56% respectively). IMPC had a lower rate of breast conserving surgery (26% vs.37.8%) compared with IDC.
The survival analysis indicated that IMPC patients had no significant difference in overall survival compared with IDC patients and no differences were noted in locoregional recurrence rate and distant metastasis rate comparing IMPCs with IDCs.
The results from our PSM analysis suggested that there was no statistically significant difference in prognosis between IMPC and IDC patients after matching them with similar clinical characteristics. However, IMPC was found to be more aggressive, had larger tumor size, greater lymph node metastasis rate and an advanced tumor stage.
Peer Review reports
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. In the 2012 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of breast cancer. Breast Cancer is classified into up to 21 different histological types depending on cell growth, morphology and architecture patterns [ 1 ]. The invasive carcinoma of no special type (IBC-NST), which is known as invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), is the most frequently occurring histological type, which constitutes around 75% of invasive breast carcinoma [ 2 ].
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) was first proposed as an entity by Fisher et al. in 1980 [ 3 ] and first described as the term “invasive micropapillary carcinoma” by Siriaunkgul et al. [ 4 ] in 1993.
In the 2003 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for histologic classification of the breast tumors [ 5 ]. IMPC was recognized as a distinct, rare histological subtype of breast cancer. While micropapillary histological architecture is present in 2–8% of breast carcinomas, pure micropapillary carcinoma is uncommon and accounts for 0.9–2% of all breast cancers [ 6 ].
IMPC exhibits more distinct morphologic architecture than the IDC, characterized by pseudopapillary and tubuloalveolar arrangements of tumor cell clusters in clear empty sponge-like spaces that resemble extensive lymphatic invasion [ 7 ]. The neoplastic cell exhibits an “inside-out” pattern, known as the reverse polarity pattern [ 2 ].
Most studies demonstrate that the radiological findings of IMPC are irregular-shaped masses with an angular or spiculated margin on ultrasound, mammography and MRI with heterogeneous enhancement and washout kinetics on MRI [ 8 ].
IMPC had tendency to manifest as a palpable mass, larger in size and higher in grade than IDC with more rate of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and lymph node (LN) involvement, which changes the surgical and adjuvant management plans to more aggressive, with comparative prognosis still being a point of ongoing debate [ 9 ].
In this study, we compared the clinicopathological characteristics, survival and surgical management of breast cancer patients having invasive micropapillary carcinoma pathological subtype in comparison to those having invasive ductal carcinoma.
This is a comparative study on female patients presented to Baheya center for early detection and treatment of breast cancer, in the period from 2015 to 2022 diagnosed with breast cancer of IMPC subtype in one group compared with another group of invasive duct carcinoma.
This retrospective study analyzed 138 cases of IMPC and 500 cases of IDC. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Ethical approval is obtained from Baheya center for early detection and treatment of breast cancer and National research center ethics committee. Baheya IRB protocol number:202305150022.
The following clinical-pathological features were analyzed for each case: patient age at diagnosis, clinical presentation, laterality, imaging findings, histopathological examination, treatment plan with either primary surgical intervention or other treatment protocol according to tumor stage and biological subtypes.
A breast pathologist evaluated the tumor size, type, grade, lymphovascular invasion, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) receptor and the axillary lymph node involvement.
According to the ASCO/CAP guideline update, 2019: Samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive for ER or progesterone receptor (PgR) are interpreted as positive. If ER (not PgR), 1% to 10% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive, the sample are reported as ER Low Positive. There are limited data on the overall benefit of endocrine therapies for patients with low level (1%-10%) ER expression, but they currently suggest possible benefit, so patients are considered eligible for endocrine treatment. A sample is considered negative for ER or PgR if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive [ 10 ]. An Allred score between 0 and 8. This scoring system looks at what percentage of cells test positive for hormone receptors, along with how well the receptors show up after staining, called intensity: proportion of cells staining (0, no staining; 1, < 1%; 2, between 1 and 10%; 3, between 11 and 33%; 4, between 34 and 66% and 5, between 67%–100% of the cells staining). Intensity of positive tumor cells (0, none; 1, weak, 2, intermediate; and 3, strong) [ 11 ].
HER2 Test Guideline IHC Recommendations, 2018. IHC 0: as defined by no staining observed or membrane staining that is incomplete and is faint/barely perceptible and within < = 10% of the invasive tumor cells. IHC 1 + : as defined by incomplete membrane staining that is faint/barely perceptible and within > 10% of the invasive tumor cells. IHC 2 + : The revised definition of IHC 2 + (equivocal) is weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in > 10% of tumor cells. IHC 3 + : based on circumferential membrane staining that is complete, intense in > 10% of tumor cells. [ 12 ].
ASCO–CAP HER2 SISH Test Guideline Recommendations,2018 Twenty nuclei (each containing red (Chr17) and black (HER2) signals) should be enumerated. The final results for the HER2 status are reported based on the ratio formed by dividing the sum of HER2 signals for all 20 nuclei divided by the sum of Chromosome 17 signals for all 20 nuclei. The amplification status is defined as Amplified if the HER2/Chromosome 17 ratio > / = 2.0 and the average Her2 gene copy number is > / = 4.0. It is non-Amplified if the HER2/Chromosome 17 ratio < 2.0 with the Her2 gene copy number is < 4.0. If the HER2/Chr17 ratio is < 2 and the Her2 gene copy number is between 4.0 and 6.0, or, HER2/Chr17 ratio is > / = 2 and the Her2 gene copy number is < 4, or HER2/Chr17 ratio is < 2 and the Her2 gene copy number is > / = 6.0, an additional work should be done. [ 12 ].
Follow-up duration was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of the last follow-up. Patients still alive at the last follow-up censored or to the date of occurrence of any event or death.
Disease-free survival was defined as the duration (months) from the initial diagnosis of breast cancer to first any type of recurrence (invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, local invasive recurrence, regional invasive recurrence, invasive contra lateral breast cancer, distant metastasis.
Overall survival (OS) is defined as the time from diagnosis of breast cancer to death from any cause.
Data were statistically analyzed using an IBM-compatible personal computer with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23. Quantitative data were expressed as mean, standard deviation (SD) and range (minimum–maximum). Qualitative data were expressed as Number (N) and percentage (%), while A P value of < 0.05 was statistically significant. For comparison of unmatched data, chi-square tests were used for categorical variables and t-tests or Mann–Whitney tests for continuous variables.
In this study, we analyzed 138 cases of IMPC which presented to our center in the period from 2015 to 2022.We included a total number of 500 cases of IDC as controls with a ratio of controls to cases 4:1.
Propensity score matching (PSM) is a method for filtrating experimental and control cases of similar characteristics, which are called the matching variables, from existing data to make them comparable in a retrospective analysis. PSM reduce the effect of selection bias. So, the comparison of outcomes between two groups can be fair.
The variables for propensity score matching were selected as follows: age (years), tumour size (cm), nodal status, HR status and HER2 status.
To diminish the effects of baseline differences and potential confounds in clinical characteristics and patients across histology subtypes for outcome differences (disease-free survival and overall survival), PSM method was applied with each micropapillary patient matched to one IDC patient who showed similar baseline characteristics in terms of: menopausal status, comorbidities, multiplicity, histologic grade, tumor size, stage, nodal status, ER /PR status. Differences in prognosis were assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis.
Most of the patients were postmenopausal, the mean age of patients in IMPC group was 57.36 ± 11.321 years while the mean age of the IDC group was 56.63 ± 9.719 years ( p = 0.45) (Table 1 ).
The most common presentation of IMPC on breast mammography was an irregular shaped mass with a non-circumscribed spiculated margin. while, the most common sonographic finding of IMPC was hypoechoic mass with irregular shapes and spiculated margins. Associated microcalcifications were found in 49 patients (35.5%) of IMPC group. Figs. ( 1 , 2 ): Radiological characteristics of IMPC.
A , B 37-years-old female patient presented with Left breast UOQ extensive fine pleomorphic and amorphous calcifications of segmental distribution, with UOQ multiple indistinct irregular masses. C ultrasound showed left breast UOQ multiple irregular hypoechoic masses with calcific echogenic foci, the largest is seen at 1 o’clock measuring 13 × 15mm. Intraductal echogenic lesions are noted
A , B , C 40-years-old female patient presented with left UOQ extensive pleomorphic microcalcifications of segmental distribution reaching the areola, with multiple well-circumscribed small obscured masses. D , E complementary Ultrasound showed left 2 o’clock multiple ill-defined and well-defined hypoechoic masses (BIRADS 5)
All patients underwent axillary sonography where 77 patients (55.8%) of the IMPC group exhibited pathological lymph nodes and 18 patients (13%) had indeterminate lymph nodes demonstrating preserved hila and associated with either a symmetrical increase of their cortical thickness reaching 3mm or with a focal increase in the cortical thickness.
Multiple lesions were detected in 30% of IMPC patients in comparison to 7% of IDC patients. Intra-ductal extension with nipple involvement was found in 44 patients (31.9%) of the IMPC group (Table 2 ).
MRI was done for 5 cases (3.6%), while CESM was performed for 18 cases (13%) of the IMPC group, the commonest presentation of IMPC in contrast study was irregular shaped enhanced mass in 21 patients and non-mass enhancement was found in 5 patients. Figs. ( 3 , 4 ).
Further imaging modalities. A , B , C 60-years-old female patient had right breast irregular hypoechoic solid mass by ultrasound (BIRADS 5). D , E CESM showed a right breast irregular heterogeneously enhancing solid mass
Role of CESM in diagnosis of IMPC patients. A , B 42-years-old patient presented with a left LIQ irregular spiculated mass with suspicious microcalcifications, other similar lesions were seen anterior and posterior at the same line. C Ultrasound showed a heterogeneously hypoechoic irregular mass with a spiculated outline with multiple similar satellite lesions were seen anterior and posterior to the main lesions
The average tumor size in the IMPC and IDC groups was 3.37 ± 2.04 cm and 2.72 ± 1.39 cm, respectively ( P < 0.001).
The percentage of tumors larger than 5cm, was reported 9.5% in IMPC and 7.4% in IDC.
The pure form of IMPC was the most common type and found in 90 cases (65%) and 47 cases (34%) were mixed type where IDC was the commonest associated type.
There are 6 cases in the IMPC group diagnosed as invasive mucinous carcinoma on biopsy, then in the specimen was mixed invasive micropapillary, IBC-NST and invasive mucinous carcinoma.
On core biopsy, 28 cases were diagnosed as IMPC with focal IDC component, but in corresponding specimens 10 cases were only approved to be mixed invasive micropapillary and invasive duct carcinoma, while others diagnosed as pure invasive micropapillary carcinoma without IDC component.
On the other hand, 48 of our cases were diagnosed as IDC on core biopsy, but in the final specimen examination, 17 of these cases were diagnosed as pure invasive micropapillary carcinoma without invasive ductal component.
The explanation of controversy in proper histologic subtyping of carcinoma on core biopsy and the definite subtype on the corresponding specimen was that the ductal component which only represented in the biopsy is a very minor component of the tumor or the limited sampling, tissue fragmentation and architecture distortion in core biopsy may cause diagnostic pitfalls as regard precise subtyping of the tumor.
The incidence of LVI in the IMPC group was 88.3% in comparison to 47.0% in the IDC group ( p < 0.001).
IMPC had a higher incidence of lymph node involvement than the IDC group (68.8% and 56% respectively) with N3 stage reported in 12.4% of IMPC patients.
IMPC had a higher nuclear grade than the IDC group (25.1% and 15.2% respectively).
The percentage of ER-positive patients was 97.8% in the IMPC group and 87.6% in the IDC group ( p < 0.001), while PR-positive cases were 98.6% in the IMPC group and 88.8% in the IDC group ( p < 0.001). HER2 status was positive in 4.3% of IMPCs and 8% of IDCs ( p = 0.23) (Table 3 ) (Figs. 5 , 6 ).
A case of invasive micropapillary carcinoma. A case of invasive micropapillary carcinoma, grade II. A Tissue core biopsy, × 100, B MRM specimen × 100 with Positive metastatic L. nodes 2/15, C ER is positive in > 90% of tumor cells, × 100, D PR is positive in > 90% of tumor cells, × 400, E HER2/neu is negative, × 400 and F) Ki-67 labelling index is high, × 200. This case was considered as luminal type pure invasive micropapillary carcinoma. (100 micron 20__ 50 micron 40)
A case of invasive duct carcinoma. A case of invasive duct carcinoma, grade II. A Tissue core biopsy, × 100, B MRM specimen, × 200 with negative L. nodes 0/16, C ER is positive in > 90% of tumor cells, × 200, D PR is positive in > 90% of tumor cells, × 100, E HER2/neu is negative, × 400. This case was considered as luminal type pure invasive duct carcinoma
Regarding definitive surgical management, IMPC had a lower rate of breast conserving surgery (26% vs.37.8%) compared with IDC. While, 49.3% of IMPC patients underwent modified radical mastectomy in comparison to 46% of the IDC patients. Such high incidence of mastectomy was due to the advanced stage at presentation, presence of multiple lesions and presence of intra-ductal extension with nipple involvement.
The incidence of re-surgery in the IMPC group was only in 3 cases, two of them underwent completion mastectomy after the initial conservative breast surgery and axillary clearance. While one patient underwent wider margin excision as positive margin for an invasive residual disease was found.
Two patients in the IMPC group had distant metastasis at the initial diagnosis, they had multiple metastatic lesions and received systemic treatment but one of them underwent palliative mastectomy.
Systemic chemotherapy was administered to 107 patients (77.5%) in the IMPC group and to 207 patients (41%) in the IDC group. Hormonal therapy was administered to all IMPC patients and 76% patients in the IDC group (Table 4 ).
The overall median follow-up duration was 21 months (range 6 – 88 months) with mean follow up duration = 29.8months.
Among the 138 IMPC patients, local recurrence developed in 3 cases, they developed a recurrence at 6,18 and 48 months postoperative. Distant metastasis developed in 5 patients in the form of bone, lung, hepatic and mediastinal lymph node metastasis.
The survival analysis indicated that IMPC patients had no significant difference in overall survival compared with IDC patients and no differences were noted in locoregional recurrence rate comparing IMPCs with IDCs (2.2% and 0.4% respectively). P value for local recurrence = 0.12 (yates corrected chi square).
Distant metastasis rate comparing IMPCs with IDCs was (3.7% and 5.4% respectively). P value for distant metastasis = 0.53 (Table 5 ).
Comparison of OS between IDC and micropapillary cases (Matched by propensity score matching -PSM).
Type | Total N | N of Events | Censored | |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | Percent | |||
IDC | 125 | 7 | 118 | 94.4% |
Micropapillary | 128 | 3 | 125 | 97.7% |
Overall | 253 | 10 | 243 | 96.0% |
Type | Mean survival time | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | Std. Error | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||
IDC | 84.596 | 2.314 | 80.061 | 89.131 |
Micropapillary | 57.530 | .844 | 55.876 | 59.185 |
Overall | 85.807 | 1.633 | 82.606 | 89.008 |
Chi-Square | df | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|
Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) | .438 | 1 | .508 |
Disease free survival
Type | Total N | N of Events | Censored | |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | Percent | |||
IDC | 124 | 11 | 113 | 91.1% |
Micropapillary | 129 | 5 | 124 | 96.1% |
Overall | 253 | 16 | 237 | 93.7% |
Type | Mean | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | Std. Error | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||
IDC | 77.324 | 3.019 | 71.407 | 83.242 |
Micropapillary | 56.062 | 1.355 | 53.407 | 58.718 |
Overall | 78.725 | 2.333 | 74.152 | 83.299 |
Chi-Square | df | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|
Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) | .380 | 1 | .537 |
IMPC is a highly invasive type of breast cancer. Hashmi A.A. et al. [ 13 ] found that the incidence of IMPC is very low accounting for 0.76–3.8% of breast carcinomas.
Shi WB et al.; [ 7 ] in a study comparing 188 IMPC cases and 1,289 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) cases from China showed that IMPC can occur either alone or mixed with other histological types, such as ductal carcinoma in situ, mucinous carcinoma and IDC. Furthermore, the majority of patients had mixed IMPC.
Fakhry et al. [ 14 ] reported that 64.7% of IMPC patients were pure type. In our study, we found that the pure form of IMPC was the commonest type and presented in 90 patients (65%) and 47 cases (34%) were mixed type which was similar to that reported by Nassar et al. [ 15 ], and Guo et al. [ 16 ] in their studies.
In our study, the commonest finding of IMPC on breast mammography was an irregular shaped mass with a non-circumscribed spiculated margin. While, the commonest sonographic finding of IMPC was hypoechoic mass with irregular shapes and spiculated margins.
These findings were similar to the results demonstrated by Jones et al., [ 17 ] which found that the commonest morphologic finding of IMPC was an irregular high-density lesion (50% of patients) with spiculated margin (42% of patients). However, Günhan-Bilgen et al. [ 18 ] reported that an ovoid or round lesion was found in 53.8% of patients.
Alsharif et al., [ 19 ] reported that the commonest sonographic finding of IMPC was hypoechoic masse (39/41, 95%) with irregular shape (30/41, 73.2%) and angular or spiculated margin (26/41, 63.4%).
In our study, MRI was done for 5 cases (3.6%), while CESM was performed for 18 cases (13%) of the IMPC group, the commonest presentation of IMPC in contrast study was irregular shaped enhanced lesion in 21 cases and non-mass enhancement was presented in 5 cases.
Nangogn et al. [ 20 ] and yoon et al. [ 8 ] recorded that the commonest finding of IMPCs in MRI was spiculated irregular mass with early rapid initial heterogenous enhancement, indicating that the MRI findings correlated with the invasiveness of IMPC.
Fakhry et al. [ 14 ] conducted a study on 68 cases, out of which 17 cases underwent CEM. In all of these cases, the masses showed pathological enhancement, which was either in the form of mass enhancement (12/17 patients, 70.6%) or non-mass enhancement (4/17 patients, 23.5%). The majority of the enhanced masses were irregular in shape (11/12 patients, 91.7%).
All patients underwent axillary sonography and 77 patients (55.8%) of the IMPC group exhibited pathological lymph nodes; this percentage was similar to that recorded by Nangong et al. [ 20 ] which was 54.8% and lower than that recorded by Jones et al. [ 17 ] but higher than that of Günhan et al. [ 18 ] which were 67% and 38% respectively.
Günhan et al. [ 18 ] reported microcalcification in about 66.7% of the cases. In our study, associated microcalcifications were found in 49 patients (35.5%) of the IMPC group. Yun et al. [ 21 ] and Adrada et al. [ 22 ] showed a fine pleomorphic appearance (66.7% and 68%).
Hao et al. [ 23 ] compared the rate of tumors larger than 5cm, reporting 3% in IDC and 4.3% in IMPC. In our study, the rate of tumors larger than 5cm, was reported 7.4% in the IDC patients and 9.5% in the IMPC patients.
Yu et al., et al. [ 24 ] documented in a study comparing 72 cases of IMPC and 144 cases of IDC of the breast that IMPC had a higher nuclear grade than IDC (52.8% vs. 37.5% respectively). In our study, IMPC had a higher nuclear grade than the IDC group (25.1% and 15.2% respectively).
Verras GI et al.; [ 9 ] demonstrated that IMPC was an aggressive breast cancer subtype with a great tendency to lymphovascular invasion and lymph node metastasis. In our study, the incidence of LVI in the IMPC patients was 88.3% in comparison to 47.0% in the IDC patients ( p < 0.001). Tang et al., [ 25 ] also reported that lymphovascular involvement was more common among the IIMPC group than IDC group, with a percentage of 14.7% compared to only 0.1% in the IDC group.
Also, Shi et al. [ 7 ] reported that LVI was detected in 74.5% of cases. Furthermore, the frequency of LVI was found to be greater in IMPC cases when compared to IDC cases. Jones et al., [ 17 ] recorded angiolymphatic invasion in 69% of cases.
Hashmi et al. [ 13 ] reported in his comparative study that nodal involvement was present in 49.5% of IDC patients and N3 stage was only 15.6% in IDC patients compared to 33% in IMPC patients. In our study, the percentage of lymph node involvement of IMPC and IDC patients were 68.8% and 56% respectively with N3 stage reported in 12.4% of IMPC patients.
Guan et al. [ 26 ], Lewis et al., [ 27 ], Pettinato et al., [ 28 ] and De La Cruz et al., [ 29 ] recorded a higher percentage of lymph node metastasis in IMPC patients, reaching 90%, 92.9%,55.2% and 60.9% respectively.
The management of IMPC remains controversial, particularly among breast surgeons. Modified radical mastectomy was the preferred surgical procedure for the majority of IMPC case reports, as found in a study conducted by Yu et al., [ 24 ] where 99% of IMPC cases underwent modified radical mastectomy. Fakhry et al. [ 14 ] reported that 76.5% of the patients underwent modified radical mastectomy. In our study, 49.3% of IMPC patients received modified radical mastectomy.
IMPC patients were also prone to accept BCS rather than mastectomy in the previous series conducted by Lewis GD,et al. [ 27 ] and Vingiani, A. et al. [ 30 ]. However, the precise prognosis value of BCS for patients with IMPC remained unknowable. In our study, IMPC had a lower rate of breast conserving surgery (26% vs.37.8%) compared with IDC.
IMPC was characterized by a high incidence of ER and PR positivity. Our study recorded a high percentage of ER (97.8%) and PR (98.6%) expression. Our findings are similar to those found by Walsh et al., [ 31 ] who reported ER and PR expression of 90% and 70%, respectively. Zekioglu et al. [ 32 ] demonstrated a rate of ER and PR expression of 68% and 61%respectively.
In this study, we reported a relatively lower percentage of HER-2 positivity (4.3%). Also, Nangong et al. [ 20 ] showed HER 2 overexpression in 26.4% of cases.
However, Cui et al. [ 33 ] reported a much higher incidence of HER 2 positivity and Perron et al., [ 34 ] reported that 65% of IMPCs were HER-2 positive.
Chen, A et al. [ 35 ] reported that that the percentage of radiation therapy for IMPC patients was similar to those seen in IDC patients and demonstrates a similar benefit of radiation treatment in both groups. In our study,77.5% patients received radiotherapy in IMPC group in compared to 59.4% patients in IDC group.
Shi et al. [ 7 ] found that patients with IMPC had worse recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates as compared to those with IDC. However, because IMPC is relatively rare, most studies had reported on small sample sizes with limited follow-ups.
Yu et al., [ 24 ] conducted a comparison between IMPC and IDC patients, and the results showed that the IMPC group had a greater tendency for LRR compared to the IDC group ( P = 0.03), but the distant metastasis rate ( P = 0.52) and OS rate ( P = 0.67) of the IMPC showed no statistical differences from the IDC group.
Nevertheless, several recent studies documented that IMPC had better or similar prognosis in comparison to IDC.
Hao et al. [ 23 ] and Vingiani et al. [ 30 ] documented that there was no statistically significant difference in OS and disease-free survival between IMPC patients and IDC patients which was similar to our results. locoregional recurrence rate comparing IMPCs with IDCs was (2.2% and 0.4% respectively). P value for local recurrence = 0.12 (yates corrected chi square). Distant metastasis rate comparing IMPCs with IDCs was (3.7% and 5.4% respectively). P value for distant metastasis = 0.53.
Chen H et al. [ 36 ], compared the overall survival in patient groups with similar nodal involvement and found that IMPC group had better breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival than IDC group.
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma
Invasive duct carcinoma
Modified radical mastectomy
Conserving breast surgery
Estrogen receptor
Progesterone receptor
Lymphovascular invasion
Contrast enhanced spectral mammography
Overall survival
Lakhani SR. International Agency for Research on Cancer Press and World Health Organization. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer Press; 2012.
Wu Y, Zhang N, Yang Q. The prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma in the breast: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:839.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Fisher ER, Palekar AS, et al. Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project (protocol no. 4). Vi. Invasive papillary cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 1980;73:313–22.
Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Siriaunkgul S, Tavassoli FA. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Mod Pathol. 1993;6:660–2.
PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Hanby AM, walker C, Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. WHO Classification of Tumours series. Breast Cancer Res. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004;4(6):133. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr788 .
Yang YL, Liu BB, Zhang X, Fu L. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: an update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(8):799–805. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2016-0040-RA .
Shi WB, Yang LJ, et al. Clinico-pathological features and prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma compared to invasive ductal carcinoma: a population-based study from china. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e101390.
Yoon GY, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Chae EY, Choi WJ. Comparison of invasive micropapillary and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: a matched cohort study. Acta Radiol. 2019;60(11):1405–13.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Verras GI, et al. Micropapillary breast carcinoma: from molecular pathogenesis to prognosis. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2022;12(14):41–61.
Google Scholar
Allison KH, Hammond MEH, Dowsett M, McKernin SE, Carey LA, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(12):1346–66. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02309 .
Fitzgibbons PL, Dillon DA, Alsabeh R, Berman MA, Hayes DF, Hicks DG, Hughes KS, Nofech-Mozes S. Template for reporting results of biomarker testing of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(5):595–601.
Ahn S, Woo JW, Lee K, Park SY. HER2 status in breast cancer: changes in guidelines and complicating factors for interpretation. J PatholTransl Med. 2020;54(1):34.
Hashmi AA, et al. Clinicopathologic features of invasive metaplastic and micropapillary breast carcinoma: comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11:1–7.
Article Google Scholar
Fakhry S, et al. Radiological characteristics of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol. 2024;79(1):e34–40.
Nassar H, Wallis T, Andea A, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of invasive micropapillary differentiation in breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2001;14:836e41.
Guo X, Chen L, Lang R, et al. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: association of pathologic features with lymph node metastasis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:740e6.
Jones KN, Guimaraes LS, Reynolds CA, Ghosh K, Degnim AC, Glazebrook KN. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: imaging features with clinical and pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:689–95.
Günhan-Bilgen I, et al. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: clinical, mammographic, and sonographic findings with histopathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:927–31.
Alsharif S, et al. Mammographic, sonographic and MR imaging features of invasive micropapillary breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(8):1375–80.
Nangong J, Cheng Z, Yu L, Zheng X, Ding G. Invasive micropapillary breast carcinoma: a retrospective study on the clinical imaging features and pathologic findings. Front Surg. 2022;23(9):1011773.
Yun SU, Choi BB, Shu KS, et al. Imaging findings of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. J Breast Cancer. 2012;15:57e64.
Adrada B, Arribas E, Gilcrease M, et al. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, and MRI features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:58e63.
Hao S, Zhao Y, Peng J, et al. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast had no difference in prognosis compared with invasive ductal carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–8.
Yu JI, Choi DH, Huh SJ, et al. Differences in prognostic factors and failure patterns between invasive micropapillary carcinoma and carcinoma with micropapillary component versus invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: retrospective multicenter case-control study (KROG 13–06). Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15:353–361.e2.
Tang S-L, Yang J-Q, Du Z-G, et al. Clinicopathologic study of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Oncotarget. 2017;8:42455–65.
Guan X, Xu G, Shi A, et al. Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis among patients with pure invasive ductal carcinoma, invasive ductal carcinoma coexisted with invasive micropapillary carcinoma, and invasive ductal carcinoma coexisted with ductal carcinoma. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e23487.
Lewis GD, Xing Y, Haque W, et al. The impact of molecular status on survival outcomes for invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Breast J. 2019;25:1171e6.
Pettinato G, Pambuccian SE, Di Prisco B, et al. Fine needle aspiration cytology of invasive micropapillary (pseudopapillary) carcinoma of the breast: report of 11 cases with clinicopathologic findings. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:1088e94.
De La Cruz C, et al. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study. Pathol Int. 2004;54:90–6.
Vingiani A, et al. The clinical relevance of micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: a case–control study. Histopathology. 2013;63:217–24.
Walsh MM, Bleiweiss IJ. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: eighty cases of an underrecognized entity. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:583–9.
Zekioglu O, et al. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: high incidence of lymph node metastasis with extranodal extension and its immunohistochemical profile compared with invasive ductal carcinoma. Histopathology. 2004;44:18–23.
Cui ZQ, et al. Clinicopathological features of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Oncol Lett. 2015;9:1163–6.
Perron M, Wen HY, Hanna MG, Brogi E, Ross DS. HER2 Immunohistochemistry in invasive micropapillary breast carcinoma: complete assessment of an incomplete pattern. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021;145:979–87.
Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
Chen A, Paulino A, Schwartz M, et al. Population-based comparison of prognostic factors in invasive micropapillary and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:619–22.
Chen H, Wu K, Wang M, Wang F, Zhang M, Zhang P. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast has a better long-term survival than invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast in spite of its aggressive clinical presentations: a comparison based on large population database and case–control analysis. Cancer Med. 2017;6:2775–86.
Download references
Not applicable.
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Mohamed Fathy Abdelfattah Abdelrahman Elithy
Present address: Department of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
Mahmoud Hassaan
Present address: Departement of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Yasmine Hany Abdel Moamen Elzohery
Department of Radiodiagnosis, NCI, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Amira H. Radwan & Sherihan W. Y. Gareer
Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Mona M. Mamdouh
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, National Liver Institute, Menoufia, Egypt
Baheya Center for Early Detection and Treatment of Breast Cancer, Giza, Egypt
Yasmine Hany Abdel Moamen Elzohery, Amira H. Radwan, Sherihan W. Y. Gareer, Mona M. Mamdouh, Inas Moaz, Abdelrahman Mohammad Khalifa, Osama Abdel Mohen, Mohamed Fathy Abdelfattah Abdelrahman Elithy & Mahmoud Hassaan
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Mohamed fathy participated in the sequence alignment and Yasmine hany drafted the manuscript. Mahmoud Hassan participated in the design of the study. Inas Moaz and Abdelrahman Mohammad performed the statistical analysis. Amira H. Radwan and Sherihan WY Gareer conceived the study. Mona M Mamdouh and Osama abdel Mohen participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to Yasmine Hany Abdel Moamen Elzohery .
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
Available all patients provided informed consent for publication. All patients provided signed written informed consent.
Ethical approval is obtained from Baheya center for early detection and treatment of breast cancer and National research center ethics committee. Baheya IRB protocol number: 202305150022.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Elzohery, Y.H.A.M., Radwan, A.H., Gareer, S.W.Y. et al. Micropapillary breast carcinoma in comparison with invasive duct carcinoma. Does it have an aggressive clinical presentation and an unfavorable prognosis?. BMC Cancer 24 , 992 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12673-0
Download citation
Received : 05 April 2024
Accepted : 23 July 2024
Published : 12 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12673-0
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 1471-2407
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Apply the 10-20-30 rule. Apply the 10-20-30 presentation rule and keep it short, sweet and impactful! Stick to ten slides, deliver your presentation within 20 minutes and use a 30-point font to ensure clarity and focus. Less is more, and your audience will thank you for it! 9. Implement the 5-5-5 rule. Simplicity is key.
Learn from a Silicon Valley CEO and a Harvard instructor how to deliver effective and memorable business presentations. Find out the secrets of concise, visual, vocal, and surprising communication.
When in doubt, adhere to the principle of simplicity, and aim for a clean and uncluttered layout with plenty of white space around text and images. Think phrases and bullets, not sentences. As an ...
Learn how to use PowerPoint to create and deliver engaging presentations with clear fonts, simple text, graphics, and contrast. Find out how to prepare your equipment, practice your presentation, and monitor your audience.
Tip #1: Build a narrative. One memorable way to guarantee presentation success is by writing a story of all the points you desire to cover. This statement is based on the logic behind storytelling and its power to connect with people. Don't waste time memorizing slides or reading your presentation to the audience.
Rule 2: Spend only 1 minute per slide. When you present your slide in the talk, it should take 1 minute or less to discuss. This rule is really helpful for planning purposes—a 20-minute presentation should have somewhere around 20 slides. Also, frequently giving your audience new information to feast on helps keep them engaged.
A great PowerPoint presentation is: Prepared to Win. Research, plan, and prepare your presentation professionally. It helps you deliver an effective message to your target audience. Designed Correctly. Your visual points should stand out without overwhelming your audience. A good PowerPoint visual shouldn't complicate your message.
Presentation Guidelines for Delivering Your PowerPoint. Now that your presentation is designed, the last thing you need to do is deliver it. Here are a few PowerPoint presentation guidelines to follow for delivering your PowerPoint presentation: 1. Do a Practice Run. Before the actual presentation day, do a practice run.
How great leaders inspire action. Loading... Get a daily email featuring the latest talk, plus a quick mix of trending content. TED Members make our mission possible by supporting global access to inspiring ideas. Plus, they get to attend exclusive events. Help support a better future - and a brighter you.
In the "Insert" menu, select "Table" and opt for a one-by-one table. Change the table color to a light gray shade, elongate it, and position it neatly to the left of your text. To improve readability and aesthetics, increase the spacing between text phrases. A small adjustment in the before spacing setting (setting it to 48) significantly ...
Make Bullet Points Count. Limit the Use of Transitions. Skip Text Where Possible. Think in Color. Take a Look From the Top Down. Bonus: Start With Templates. Slideshows are an intuitive way to share complex ideas with an audience, although they're dull and frustrating when poorly executed.
Presentation skills are the abilities and qualities necessary for creating and delivering a compelling presentation that effectively communicates information and ideas. They encompass what you say, how you structure it, and the materials you include to support what you say, such as slides, videos, or images. You'll make presentations at various ...
• The following 37 slides present guidelines and suggestions for the use of fonts, colors, and graphics when preparing PowerPoint presentations for Sessions and Seminars. • This media (PPT) is designed to ENHANCE your presentation, not BE the presentation. • Remember, only you can prevent "Death by PowerPoint"
Microsoft PowerPoint is a presentation design software that is part of Microsoft 365. This software allows you to design presentations by combining text, images, graphics, video, and animation on slides in a simple and intuitive way. Over time, PowerPoint has evolved and improved its accessibility to users.
Here are five presentation tips to help you create a strong presentation and wow your audience: 1. Keep it simple. Simple means something different to everyone. Before creating your presentation, take note of your intended audience and their knowledge level of your subject. You'll want your content to be easy for your intended audience to follow.
To select multiple slides, click a slide and then press and hold CTRL while you click the other slides. Next, click the "Themes" tab at the top of your screen. In the "Theme Options" group, click "Background," then "Format Background." In the window that appears, click "Fill," then "Picture or Texture."
Follow the 5/5/5 rule. To keep your audience from feeling overwhelmed, you should keep the text on each slide short and to the point. Some experts suggest using the 5/5/5 rule: no more than five words per line of text, five lines of text per slide, or five text-heavy slides in a row.
Try a story (see tip 7 below), or an attention-grabbing (but useful) image on a slide. 6. Remember the 10-20-30 Rule for Slideshows. This is a tip from Guy Kawasaki of Apple. He suggests that slideshows should: Contain no more than 10 slides; Last no more than 20 minutes; and. Use a font size of no less than 30 point.
To keep your colors consistent and easy to access, save a color palette in PowerPoint. Click the Design tab and under Variants, click the down arrow (1). On the dropdown menu click Colors (2) and Customize Colors (3). In the Create New Theme colors dialogue click one of the color slots (4).
The good news is that your PowerPoint presentation doesn't have to be ordinary. By keeping in mind a few guidelines, your classroom presentations can stand above the crowd! "It is easy to dismiss design - to relegate it to mere ornament, the prettifying of places and objects to disguise their banality.
Ensure that your presentation still works without your visual aids in case of technical problems. 10-20-30 slideshow rule. Slideshows are widely used for presentations because it's easy to create attractive and professional presentations using them. Guy Kawasaki, an entrepreneur and author, suggests that slideshows should follow a 10-20-30 rule:
Template #1: Brand Guidelines Presentation Template. Customize this presentation template and make it your own! Edit and Download. If you have brand guidelines created for your business, one great way to share them with your team and stakeholders is to put together a custom presentation showing off your style guide.
Presentation Slides. Creating slides to accompany your presentation can be a great way to provide complimentary visual representation of your topic. Slides are used to fill in the gaps while you tell the story. Start your presentation with a brief introduction- who you are and what you are going to talk about.
Key Points. Question Is there a common pattern of symptom combinations across mental disorders?. Finding This cross-sectional study found a specific pattern across 4 empirical samples (N = 155 474), with 41.7% to 99.8% of symptom combinations being reported by less than 1% of the sample, while the 1% most frequent combinations were highly prevalent in 33.1% to 78.6% of the corresponding sample.
Forbes Community Guidelines. Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.
In title case, major words are capitalized, and most minor words are lowercase. Major words are nouns, verbs (including linking verbs), adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, and all words of four letters or more.
Background Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) was first proposed as an entity by Fisher et al. In the 2003 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for histologic classification of the breast tumors. IMPC was recognized as a distinct, rare histological subtype of breast cancer. IMPC is emerging as a surgical and oncological challenge due to its tendency to manifest as a palpable mass ...