Literature DB >> 11979379

Implications of pathologist concordance for breast cancer assessments in mammography screening from age 40 years.

Thomas J Anderson1, Farzana Sufi, Ian O Ellis, John P Sloane, Susan Moss.   

Abstract

Three pathologists reviewed slides and reports of cancers arising in both the study and control populations of the U.K. trial of annual mammography screening from age 40 years. A total of 875 cases were scored independently as noninvasive, microinvasive, or invasive cancer, with the last also evaluated for histology grade, type, and lymphatic vascular invasion. Of these, 870 (99.2%) were confirmed malignant, 1 case had cytology only, and 5 were judged by all reviewers as benign. Reviewer complete concordance for the three classes of malignancy was achieved in 826 (95%) and majority agreement in 31 (3.6%) of 870 with complete data. All three readers recorded grade in 736 cancers, giving a kappa statistic of 0.69, 0.52, and 0.66 for grades I, II, and III, respectively, and 0.61 overall. Agreement that the cancer was special type or not was obtained in 671 (89.0%) with complete concordance in the nature of the type in 504 and majority view in 167; another 58 (7.7%) were characterised as "part special" pattern, with type disagreement in 23 (3%). The kappa statistic for single type subcategories in those cancers was substantial, at 0.68 overall. This improved to 0.76 for the last 230 invasive cancers after the pathologists agreed more explicit criteria for type discrimination. There was almost perfect agreement between original and review diagnosis of breast malignancy for both noninvasive/microinvasive and invasive cancer (kappa 0.84 and 0.91, respectively), justifying confidence in the diagnosis of breast cancer by U.K. pathologists. The specialists agreed substantially on qualitative histology features of type and grade of cancers, and improved further for typing by defining criteria. These consensus data, along with invasive size and node status, are reliable for use as surrogate measures of outcome, and to enhance interpretation of effect, when the trial case population sources are disclosed. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11979379     DOI: 10.1053/hupa.2002.32222

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


  10 in total

1.  Breast cancer prognostication in the 21st century and the Nottingham prognostic index.

Authors:  T J Anderson
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Consistency in recognizing microinvasion in breast carcinomas is improved by immunohistochemistry for myoepithelial markers.

Authors:  G Cserni; C A Wells; H Kaya; P Regitnig; A Sapino; G Floris; T Decker; M P Foschini; P J van Diest; D Grabau; A Reiner; J DeGaetano; E Chmielik; A Cordoba; X Andreu; V Zolota; E Charafe-Jauffret; A Ryska; Z Varga; N Weingertner; J P Bellocq; I Liepniece-Karele; G Callagy; J Kulka; H Bürger; P Figueiredo; J Wesseling; I Amendoeira; D Faverly; C M Quinn; S Bianchi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Histological features associated with diagnostic agreement in atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: illustrative cases from the B-Path study.

Authors:  Kimberly H Allison; Mara H Rendi; Sue Peacock; Tom Morgan; Joann G Elmore; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 5.087

4.  Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK.

Authors:  I O Ellis; D Coleman; C Wells; S Kodikara; E M Paish; S Moss; S Al-Sam; N Anderson; L Bobrow; I Buley; C E Connolly; N S Dallimore; S Hales; A Hanby; S Humphreys; F Knox; J Lowe; J Macartney; R Nash; D Parham; J Patnick; S E Pinder; C M Quinn; A J Robertson; J Shrimankar; R A Walker; R Winder
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Digital pathology image analysis: opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Imaging Med       Date:  2009

6.  Measures of benefit for breast screening from the pathology database for Scotland, 1991-2001.

Authors:  T J Anderson; C Davis; F E Alexander; H M Dobson
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel.

Authors:  Kimberly H Allison; Lisa M Reisch; Patricia A Carney; Donald L Weaver; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Berta M Geller; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 5.087

8.  Annual mammographic screening to reduce breast cancer mortality in women from age 40 years: long-term follow-up of the UK Age RCT.

Authors:  Stephen Duffy; Daniel Vulkan; Howard Cuckle; Dharmishta Parmar; Shama Sheikh; Robert Smith; Andrew Evans; Oleg Blyuss; Louise Johns; Ian Ellis; Peter Sasieni; Chris Wale; Jonathan Myles; Sue Moss
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years.

Authors:  S Moss; I Thomas; A Evans; B Thomas; L Johns
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-03-14       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures.

Authors:  S Moss; M Waller; T J Anderson; H Cuckle
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-03-14       Impact factor: 7.640

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.