Literature DB >> 10088542

Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ.

N Sneige1, M D Lagios, R Schwarting, W Colburn, E Atkinson, D Weber, A Sahin, B Kemp, A Hoque, S Risin, A Sabichi, C Boone, K Dhingra, G Kelloff, S Lippman.   

Abstract

Several studies have shown an association between high nuclear grade or necrosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions and the risk of local disease recurrence in patients with DCIS treated surgically with less than mastectomy. Although criteria for separating low from high nuclear grade lesions have been published, no information exists regarding interobserver reproducibility (IR). To assess IR in the classification of DCIS, six surgical pathologists from four institutions used the Lagios grading system to grade 125 DCIS lesions. Before meeting to evaluate the cases, a training set of 12 glass slides, including cases chosen to present conflicting cues for classification, was mailed to the participants with a written criteria summary. This was followed by a working session in which criteria were reviewed and agreed on. The pathologists then graded the lesions independently. The area of interest was marked on each slide before grading. After initial grading, the pathologists met again to resolve discrepant lesion classifications. A complete agreement among raters was achieved in 43 (35%) cases, with five of six raters agreeing in another 45 (36%) cases. In no case did two raters differ by more than one grade. The pairwise kappa agreement values ranged from fair to substantial (0.30 to 0.61). Generalized kappa value indicated moderate agreement (0.46, standard error = 0.02). Kappa statistics for the distinction between grades 1 and 2 and 2 and 3 were 0.29 and 0.48, respectively, (standard error = 0.02). Only one of the six raters differed significantly in scoring. With adherence to specific criteria, IR in the classification of DCIS cases can be obtained in most cases. Although these pathologists made a few grading system modifications, further refinements are needed, especially if grading will influence future therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10088542     DOI: 10.1016/s0046-8177(99)90002-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  16 in total

1.  Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast.

Authors:  A G Douglas-Jones; J M Morgan; M A Appleton; R L Attanoos; A Caslin; C S Champ; M Cotter; N S Dallimore; A Dawson; R W Fortt; A P Griffiths; M Hughes; P A Kitching; C O'Brien; A M Rashid; D Stock; A Verghese; D W Williams; N W Williams; S Williams
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Pathological diagnosis of columnar cell lesions of the breast: are there issues of reproducibility?

Authors:  P H Tan; B C-S Ho; S Selvarajan; W M Yap; A Hanby
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Interobserver variability in upfront dichotomous histopathological assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the DCISion study.

Authors:  Serdar Altinay; Laurent Arnould; Noella Bletard; Cecile Colpaert; Franceska Dedeurwaerdere; Benjamin Dessauvagie; Valérie Duwel; Giuseppe Floris; Stephen Fox; Clara Gerosa; Shabnam Jaffer; Eline Kurpershoek; Magali Lacroix-Triki; Andoni Laka; Kathleen Lambein; Gaëtan Marie MacGrogan; Caterina Marchió; Dolores Martin Martinez; Sharon Nofech-Mozes; Dieter Peeters; Alberto Ravarino; Emily Reisenbichler; Erika Resetkova; Souzan Sanati; Anne-Marie Schelfhout; Vera Schelfhout; Abeer M Shaaban; Renata Sinke; Claudia Maria Stanciu-Pop; Claudia Stobbe; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Koen Van de Vijver; Anne-Sophie Van Rompuy; Stephanie Verschuere; Anne Vincent-Salomon; Hannah Wen; Hélène Dano; Caroline Bouzin; Christine Galant; Mieke R Van Bockstal
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 7.842

4.  The diagnostic challenge of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Donald L Weaver; Paul D Frederick; Kimberly H Allison; Anna N A Tosteson; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Gary M Longton; Heidi D Nelson; Natalia V Oster; Margaret S Pepe; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2017-05-20       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  Avoiding Pitfalls in the Statistical Analysis of Heterogeneous Tumors.

Authors:  David E Axelrod; Naomi Miller; Judith-Anne W Chapman
Journal:  Biomed Inform Insights       Date:  2009-01-01

6.  Classification of ductal carcinoma in situ by gene expression profiling.

Authors:  Juliane Hannemann; Arno Velds; Johannes B G Halfwerk; Bas Kreike; Johannes L Peterse; Marc J van de Vijver
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Web based pathology assessment in RTOG 98-04.

Authors:  Wendy A Woodward; Nour Sneige; Kathryn Winter; Henry Mark Kuerer; Clifford Hudis; Eileen Rakovitch; Barbara L Smith; Lori J Pierce; Isabelle Germano; Anthony T Pu; Eleanor M Walker; David Lawrence Grisell; Julia R White; Beryl McCormick
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Effect of quantitative nuclear image features on recurrence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the breast.

Authors:  David E Axelrod; Naomi A Miller; H Lavina Lickley; Jin Qian; William A Christens-Barry; Yan Yuan; Yuejiao Fu; Judith-Anne W Chapman
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2008-03-01

9.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS) with heterogeneity of nuclear grade: prognostic effects of quantitative nuclear assessment.

Authors:  Judith-Anne W Chapman; Naomi A Miller; H Lavina A Lickley; Jin Qian; William A Christens-Barry; Yuejiao Fu; Yan Yuan; David E Axelrod
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2007-09-10       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Inter-observer variability between general pathologists and a specialist in breast pathology in the diagnosis of lobular neoplasia, columnar cell lesions, atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  Douglas S Gomes; Simone S Porto; Débora Balabram; Helenice Gobbi
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 2.644

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.