Literature DB >> 16183106

Kappa statistics to measure interrater and intrarater agreement for 1790 cervical biopsy specimens among twelve pathologists: qualitative histopathologic analysis and methodologic issues.

Anais Malpica1, Jasenka P Matisic, Dirk Van Niekirk, Christopher P Crum, Gregg A Staerkel, Jose-Miguel Yamal, Martial H Guillaud, Dennis D Cox, Edward Neely Atkinson, Karen Adler-Storthz, Neal M Poulin, Calum A Macaulay, Michele Follen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As part of a program project to evaluate emerging optical technologies for cervical neoplasia, we performed fluorescence and reflectance spectroscopic examinations of patients with abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Biopsy specimens were taken from each area and measured optically, and study pathologists performed qualitative histopathologic readings. Several methodologic issues arose in this analysis: (1) the interpathologist and intrapathologist agreement between institutions for the 1790 biopsy specimens; (2) the interinstitutional agreement among the two institutions conducting the trials on 117 randomly chosen biopsy specimens; (3) the interinstitutional agreement among the two institutions and a third expert gynecologic pathologist to ensure the expert readings were comparable to those outside both institutions on 117 randomly chosen biopsy specimens; and (4) an additional three reviews of the 106 difficult biopsy specimens by all three institutions.
METHODS: All 1790 specimens from 850 patients were reviewed three times at each institution in blinded fashion; those for which the first and second reviews were identical were not reviewed a third time. A randomly selected sample of 117 specimens was randomly ordered and read by study pathologists at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH). The 106 difficult cases were treated in the same manner as the randomized and random-ordered cases. Generalized, unweighted, and weighted kappas and their 95% confidence intervals were used to assess agreement. Binary comparisons were used to compare diagnostic categories.
FINDINGS: The kappas for the three readings of the overall data set using eight-category World Health Organization (WHO) criteria were as follows: 0.66 for the generalized, 0.72 for weighted, and ranged from 0.59 to 0.94 unweighted binary categories; those read using four-category Bethesda criteria: 0.70 for generalized, 0.69 for weighted, and 0.56-0.94 for unweighted binary categories. For the pool versus the study pathologist readings, the eight-category kappa was 0.51 for generalized, 0.72 for weighted, and 0.56-0.82 for unweighted binary categories; for those read using Bethesda criteria: 0.70 for generalized, 0.70 for weighted, and 0.59-0.82 for the unweighted binary categories. The interpathologist and intrapathologist readings were fair by Landis standards at the low end of the diagnostic scale (atypia, human papillomavirus, and CIN1) and substantial to almost perfect at the high end (CIN2, CIN3, and CIS). The randomly selected and randomly ordered sample of 117 specimens read with the WHO system yielded a generalized kappa of 0.45; among the three institutions (M. D. Anderson Cancer Center vs. BCCA, M. D. Anderson vs. BWH, and BCCA vs. BWH), the unweighted kappas were 0.46, 0.41, and 0.49 and the weighted were 0.65, 0.66, and 0.68, respectively; for the Bethesda, a generalized kappa of 0.65, unweighted kappas of 0.66, 0.65, and 0.47, and weighted of 0.74, 0.72, and 0.74. The difficult specimens read with the WHO system yielded a generalized kappa of 0.23; among the three institutions the unweighted kappas were 0.20, 0.30, and 0.37, and the weighted were 0.17, 0.34, and 0.31; for the Bethesda, a generalized kappa of 0.25; among the three institutions, the unweighted kappas were 0.21, 0.32, and 0.37, and the weighted were: 0.07, 0.21, and 0.37, respectively.
INTERPRETATION: Kappas in this expert group of pathologists were in the moderate, substantial, and almost perfect ranges for the overall and randomized samples. The randomized sample was representative of the larger sample. The kappa of the specimens for which disagreements arose was, predictably, in the slight range. Our findings will aid both the correlations with optical measurements using fluorescence and reflectance spectroscopy and the quantitative histopathologic analysis of these study specimens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16183106     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.07.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  20 in total

1.  [Optical coherence tomography for differentiation of parathyroid gland tissue].

Authors:  R Ladurner; K Hallfeldt; N Al Arabi; J Gallwas; U Mortensen; S Sommerey
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Intraoperative optical coherence tomography imaging to identify parathyroid glands.

Authors:  Sandra Sommerey; Norah Al Arabi; Roland Ladurner; Constanza Chiapponi; Herbert Stepp; Klaus K J Hallfeldt; Julia K S Gallwas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Optical technologies and molecular imaging for cervical neoplasia: a program project update.

Authors:  Timon P H Buys; Scott B Cantor; Martial Guillaud; Karen Adler-Storthz; Dennis D Cox; Clement Okolo; Oyedunni Arulogon; Oladimeji Oladepo; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; José-Miguel Yamal; J Robert Beck; Michael E Scheurer; Dirk van Niekerk; Anais Malpica; Jasenka Matisic; Gregg Staerkel; Edward Neely Atkinson; Luc Bidaut; Pierre Lane; J Lou Benedet; Dianne Miller; Tom Ehlen; Roderick Price; Isaac F Adewole; Calum MacAulay; Michele Follen
Journal:  Gend Med       Date:  2011-09-22

4.  Epidemiologic differentiation of diagnostic and screening populations for the assessment of cervical dysplasia using optical technologies.

Authors:  Bryan Pham; Helen Rhodes; Andrea Milbourne; Karen Adler-Storthz; Michele Follen; Michael E Scheurer
Journal:  Gend Med       Date:  2012-02

5.  (11)C-acetate PET in the early evaluation of prostate cancer recurrence.

Authors:  Susanne Albrecht; Franz Buchegger; Dmitri Soloviev; Habib Zaidi; Hansjoerg Vees; Haleem G Khan; Alain Keller; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Osman Ratib; Raymond Miralbell
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-07-11       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Detection of TERC amplification in cervical epithelial cells for the diagnosis of high-grade cervical lesions and invasive cancer: a multicenter study in China.

Authors:  Jing Jiang; Li-Hui Wei; Ya-Li Li; Rui-Fang Wu; Xing Xie; You-Ji Feng; Guo Zhang; Chao Zhao; Yun Zhao; Zhong Chen
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 5.568

7.  Cervical histopathology variability among laboratories: a population-based statewide investigation.

Authors:  Julia C Gage; Mark Schiffman; William C Hunt; Nancy Joste; Arpita Ghosh; Nicolas Wentzensen; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.493

8.  Characterization of Molecular Markers Indicative of Cervical Cancer Progression.

Authors:  Hilal Arnouk; Mark A Merkley; Robert H Podolsky; Hubert Stöppler; Carlos Santos; Manuel Alvarez; Julio Mariategui; Daron Ferris; Jeffrey R Lee; William S Dynan
Journal:  Proteomics Clin Appl       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 3.494

9.  Prediction using hierarchical data: Applications for automated detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jose-Miguel Yamal; Martial Guillaud; E Neely Atkinson; Michele Follen; Calum MacAulay; Scott B Cantor; Dennis D Cox
Journal:  Stat Anal Data Min       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 1.051

10.  Automatic measurement of epithelium differentiation and classification of cervical intraneoplasia by computerized image analysis.

Authors:  Michel Jondet; Régis Agoli-Agbo; Louis Dehennin
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 2.644

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.