Literature DB >> 25004943

Interobserver variability in assessing dysplasia and architecture in colorectal adenomas: a multicentre Canadian study.

Allison Osmond, Hector Li-Chang, Richard Kirsch, Dimitrios Divaris, Vincent Falck, Dong Feng Liu, Celia Marginean, Ken Newell, Jeremy Parfitt, Brian Rudrick, Heidi Sapp, Sharyn Smith, Joanna Walsh, Fasahat Wasty, David K Driman.   

Abstract

AIMS: Following the introduction of colorectal cancer screening programmes throughout Canada, it became necessary to standardise the diagnosis of colorectal adenomas. Canadian guidelines for standardised reporting of adenomas were developed in 2011. The aims of the present study were (a) to assess interobserver variability in the classification of dysplasia and architecture in adenomas and (b) to determine if interobserver variability could be improved by the adoption of criteria specified in the national guidelines.
METHODS: An a priori power analysis was used to determine an adequate number of cases and participants. Twelve pathologists independently classified 40 whole-slide images of adenomas according to architecture and dysplasia grade. Following a wash-out period, participants were provided with the national guidelines and asked to reclassify the study set.
RESULTS: At baseline, there was moderate interobserver agreement for architecture (K=0.4700; 95% CI 0.4427 to 0.4972) and dysplasia grade (K=0.5680; 95% CI 0.5299 to 0.6062). Following distribution of the guidelines, there was improved interobserver agreement in assessing architecture (K=0.5403; 95% CI 0.5133 to 0.5674)). For dysplasia grade, overall interobserver agreement remained moderate but decreased significantly (K=0.4833; 95% CI 0.4452 to 0.5215). Half of the cases contained high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Two pathologists diagnosed HGD in ≥75% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in interobserver agreement in classifying adenoma architecture suggests that national guidelines can be useful in disseminating knowledge, however, the variability in the diagnosis of HGD, even following guideline review suggests the need for ongoing knowledge-transfer exercises.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25004943     DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202177

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  10 in total

Review 1.  Evolution of Premalignant Disease.

Authors:  Kit Curtius; Nicholas A Wright; Trevor A Graham
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 6.915

2.  Discrepancy Between Forceps Biopsy and Resection in Colorectal Polyps: A 1686 Paired Screening-Therapeutic Colonoscopic Finding.

Authors:  Yuanxi Jiang; Junwen Wang; Ying Chen; Huihui Sun; Zhiyu Dong; Shuchang Xu
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 2.755

3.  Radiomics Evaluation of Histological Heterogeneity Using Multiscale Textures Derived From 3D Wavelet Transformation of Multispectral Images.

Authors:  Ahmad Chaddad; Paul Daniel; Tamim Niazi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  Interobserver agreement among cytopathologists in the evaluation of pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology specimens.

Authors:  Rawad Mounzer; Roy Yen; Carrie Marshall; Sharon Sams; Sanjana Mehrotra; Mohamed Sherif Said; Joshua C Obuch; Brian Brauer; Augustin Attwell; Norio Fukami; Raj Shah; Stuart Amateau; Matthew Hall; Lindsay Hosford; Robert Wilson; Amit Rastogi; Sachin Wani
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-06-21

5.  Evaluation of a Deep Neural Network for Automated Classification of Colorectal Polyps on Histopathologic Slides.

Authors:  Jason W Wei; Arief A Suriawinata; Louis J Vaickus; Bing Ren; Xiaoying Liu; Mikhail Lisovsky; Naofumi Tomita; Behnaz Abdollahi; Adam S Kim; Dale C Snover; John A Baron; Elizabeth L Barry; Saeed Hassanpour
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-04-01

6.  Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Digital System for Histologic Classification of Colorectal Polyps.

Authors:  Mustafa Nasir-Moin; Arief A Suriawinata; Bing Ren; Xiaoying Liu; Douglas J Robertson; Srishti Bagchi; Naofumi Tomita; Jason W Wei; Todd A MacKenzie; Judy R Rees; Saeed Hassanpour
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-11-01

7.  Diagnostic variability in the histopathological assessment of advanced colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer in a screening population.

Authors:  Lisanne J H Smits; Elisa Vink-Börger; Gesina van Lijnschoten; Isabelle Focke-Snieders; Rachel S van der Post; Jurriaan B Tuynman; Nicole C T van Grieken; Iris D Nagtegaal
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 7.778

Review 8.  Current Developments of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Pathology and Its Future Clinical Applications in Gastrointestinal Cancers.

Authors:  Alex Ngai Nick Wong; Zebang He; Ka Long Leung; Curtis Chun Kit To; Chun Yin Wong; Sze Chuen Cesar Wong; Jung Sun Yoo; Cheong Kin Ronald Chan; Angela Zaneta Chan; Maribel D Lacambra; Martin Ho Yin Yeung
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 9.  The histomorphological and molecular landscape of colorectal adenomas and serrated lesions.

Authors:  Francesca Galuppini; Matteo Fassan; Luca Mastracci; Roberta Gafà; Marcello Lo Mele; Stefano Lazzi; Andrea Remo; Paola Parente; Alessandro D'Amuri; Claudia Mescoli; Fabiana Tatangelo; Giovanni Lanza
Journal:  Pathologica       Date:  2021-06

Review 10.  CAD systems for colorectal cancer from WSI are still not ready for clinical acceptance.

Authors:  Sara P Oliveira; Pedro C Neto; João Fraga; Diana Montezuma; Ana Monteiro; João Monteiro; Liliana Ribeiro; Sofia Gonçalves; Isabel M Pinto; Jaime S Cardoso
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.