Literature DB >> 10800983

Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes.

W A Wells1, P A Carney, M S Eliassen, M R Grove, A N Tosteson.   

Abstract

Several histologic classifications for breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have been proposed. This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and reproducibility of three DCIS classifications (Holland [HL], modified Lagios [LA], and Van Nuys [VN]) by comparing the interpretations of pathologists without expertise in breast pathology with those of three breast pathology experts, each a proponent of one classification. Seven nonexpert pathologists in New Hampshire and three experts evaluated 40 slides of DCIS according to the three classifications. Twenty slides were reinterpreted by each nonexpert pathologist. Diagnostic accuracy (nonexperts compared with experts) and reproducibility were evaluated using inter- and intrarater techniques (kappa statistic). Final DCIS grade and nuclear grade were reported most accurately among nonexpert pathologists using HL (kappa = 0.53 and 0.49, respectively) compared with LA and VN (kappa = 0.29 and 0.35, respectively, for both classifications). An intermediate DCIS grade was assessed most accurately using HL and LA, and a high grade (group 3) was assessed most accurately using VN. Diagnostic reproducibility was highest using HL (kappa = 0.49). The VN interpretation of necrosis (present or absent) was reported more accurately than the LA criteria (extensive, focal, or absent; kappa = 0.59 and 0.45, respectively), but reproducibility of each was comparable (kappa = 0.48 and 0.46, respectively). Intrarater agreement was high overall. Comparing all three classifications, final DCIS grade was reported best using HL. Nuclear grade (cytodifferentiation) using HL and the presence or absence of necrosis were the criteria diagnosed most accurately and reproducibly. Establishing one internationally approved set of interpretive definitions, with acceptable accuracy and reproducibility among both pathologists with and without expertise in breast pathology interpretation, will assist researchers in evaluating treatment effectiveness and characterizing the natural history of DCIS breast lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10800983     DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200005000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  12 in total

1.  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

2.  The Value of Ensari's Proposal in Evaluating the Mucosal Pathology of Childhood Celiac Disease: Old Classification versus New Version.

Authors:  Servet Güreşci; Samil Hızlı; Gülçin Güler Simşek
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 2.021

3.  Histologic grading of urothelial papillary neoplasms: impact of combined grading (two-numbered grading system) on reproducibility.

Authors:  Burçin Tuna; Kutsal Yörükoglu; Ender Düzcan; Sait Sen; Nalan Nese; Banu Sarsık; Aysegul Akder; Sehnaz Sayhan; Uğur Mungan; Ziya Kirkali
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 4.064

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.  Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Annette M Molinaro; Mona L Gauthier; Hal K Berman; Fred Waldman; James Bennington; Henry Sanchez; Cynthia Jimenez; Kim Stewart; Karen Chew; Britt-Marie Ljung; Thea D Tlsty
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Reproducibility of the 1998 World Health Organization/International Society of Urologic Pathology classification of papillary urothelial neoplasms of the urinary bladder.

Authors:  Kutsal Yorukoglu; Burcin Tuna; Emel Dikicioglu; Ender Duzcan; Aydin Isisag; Sait Sen; Ugur Mungan; Ziya Kirkali
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2003-10-08       Impact factor: 4.064

7.  Histopathological grading of breast ductal carcinoma in situ: validation of a web-based survey through intra-observer reproducibility analysis.

Authors:  Fernando Schuh; Jorge Villanova Biazús; Erika Resetkova; Camila Zanella Benfica; Alessandra de Freitas Ventura; Diego Uchoa; Márcia Graudenz; Maria Isabel Albano Edelweiss
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 2.644

8.  Identifying and processing the gap between perceived and actual agreement in breast pathology interpretation.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Kimberly H Allison; Natalia V Oster; Paul D Frederick; Thomas R Morgan; Berta M Geller; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 7.842

9.  Tissue microarray analyses of G1/S-regulatory proteins in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast indicate that low cyclin D1 is associated with local recurrence.

Authors:  K Jirström; A Ringberg; M Fernö; L Anagnostaki; G Landberg
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-11-17       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Inter-observer reproducibility of classical lobular neoplasia (B3 lesions) in preoperative breast biopsies: a study of the Swiss Working Group of breast and gynecopathologists.

Authors:  Linda Moskovszky; Barbara Berger; Achim Fleischmann; Thomas Friedrich; Birgit Helmchen; Meike Körner; Tilman T Rau; Zsuzsanna Varga
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 4.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.