AIM: To determine interobserver and intra-observer agreement in the assessment of cytological grade and intraduct necrosis in pure duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. METHODS: Sixty unselected cases with illustrated diagnostic criteria were circulated to 19 practising histopathologists. RESULTS: Overall agreement was moderate for cytological grade in three categories: 71% agreement; weighted kappa (kappa w), 0.36; intraduct necrosis in three categories (absent, present, extensive): 76% agreement; kappa w, 0.57; and the Van Nuys classification system: 73% agreement; kappa w, 0.48. Agreement was no better among observers participating in the National External Quality Assurance Programme. Intra-observer agreement for cytological assessment (69.6% agreement; kappa w, 0.52) and intraduct necrosis (68.3% agreement; kappa w, 0.48) was moderate, suggesting that individual variation rather than precision of criteria contributes to the lack of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate agreement on observations can be achieved by non-specialist pathologists, with better agreement on necrosis than cytological grade. There was evidence of consistent individual bias towards over or under scoring cytological grade, which could be corrected with adequate and prompt feedback.
AIM: To determine interobserver and intra-observer agreement in the assessment of cytological grade and intraduct necrosis in pure duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. METHODS: Sixty unselected cases with illustrated diagnostic criteria were circulated to 19 practising histopathologists. RESULTS: Overall agreement was moderate for cytological grade in three categories: 71% agreement; weighted kappa (kappa w), 0.36; intraduct necrosis in three categories (absent, present, extensive): 76% agreement; kappa w, 0.57; and the Van Nuys classification system: 73% agreement; kappa w, 0.48. Agreement was no better among observers participating in the National External Quality Assurance Programme. Intra-observer agreement for cytological assessment (69.6% agreement; kappa w, 0.52) and intraduct necrosis (68.3% agreement; kappa w, 0.48) was moderate, suggesting that individual variation rather than precision of criteria contributes to the lack of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate agreement on observations can be achieved by non-specialist pathologists, with better agreement on necrosis than cytological grade. There was evidence of consistent individual bias towards over or under scoring cytological grade, which could be corrected with adequate and prompt feedback.
Authors: N Sneige; 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 Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: H F Frierson; R A Wolber; K W Berean; D W Franquemont; M J Gaffey; J C Boyd; D C Wilbur Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: J P Sloane; R Ellman; T J Anderson; C L Brown; J Coyne; N S Dallimore; J D Davies; D Eakins; I O Ellis; C W Elston Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: R Holland; J L Peterse; R R Millis; V Eusebi; D Faverly; M J van de Vijver; B Zafrani Journal: Semin Diagn Pathol Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 3.464
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
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
Authors: J S Thomas; A M Hanby; N Russell; G van Tienhoven; K Riddle; N Anderson; D A Cameron; J M S Bartlett; T Piper; C Cunningham; P Canney; I H Kunkler Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Suzanne C Wetstein; Nikolas Stathonikos; Josien P W Pluim; Yujing J Heng; Natalie D Ter Hoeve; Celien P H Vreuls; Paul J van Diest; Mitko Veta Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: Carmen van Dooijeweert; Paul J van Diest; Inge O Baas; Elsken van der Wall; Ivette A G Deckers Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 2.644