A study of 1409 breast cancer cases, with 359 followed for 15 years, examines histological grading and prognosis. The authors propose a histological grading system based on three factors: structural differentiation (tubule formation), nuclear pleomorphism, and hyperchromatic/mitotic figures. Tumours are classified into three grades (I, II, III) based on these factors. The study shows that histological grade correlates with survival rates, with Grade I tumours having the best prognosis and Grade III the worst. The survival rates for Grades I, II, and III at 5, 10, and 15 years are presented. The study also discusses the limitations of histological grading, including variations in histological appearance within tumours, differences between primary tumours and metastases, and tumour degeneration not due to poor fixation. The authors emphasize the importance of histological grading in predicting prognosis and its value in treatment planning. The study concludes that histological grading is a useful tool in breast cancer management, despite its limitations. The results suggest that a 5-year follow-up is more significant for high-grade tumours than for low-grade ones. The study also highlights the importance of considering axillary lymph node involvement in prognosis. The authors note that histological grading is not a perfect predictor of outcome, but it provides valuable information for treatment decisions. The study underscores the need for further research into the relationship between histological grade and prognosis in breast cancer.A study of 1409 breast cancer cases, with 359 followed for 15 years, examines histological grading and prognosis. The authors propose a histological grading system based on three factors: structural differentiation (tubule formation), nuclear pleomorphism, and hyperchromatic/mitotic figures. Tumours are classified into three grades (I, II, III) based on these factors. The study shows that histological grade correlates with survival rates, with Grade I tumours having the best prognosis and Grade III the worst. The survival rates for Grades I, II, and III at 5, 10, and 15 years are presented. The study also discusses the limitations of histological grading, including variations in histological appearance within tumours, differences between primary tumours and metastases, and tumour degeneration not due to poor fixation. The authors emphasize the importance of histological grading in predicting prognosis and its value in treatment planning. The study concludes that histological grading is a useful tool in breast cancer management, despite its limitations. The results suggest that a 5-year follow-up is more significant for high-grade tumours than for low-grade ones. The study also highlights the importance of considering axillary lymph node involvement in prognosis. The authors note that histological grading is not a perfect predictor of outcome, but it provides valuable information for treatment decisions. The study underscores the need for further research into the relationship between histological grade and prognosis in breast cancer.