Sonja E Steigen1,2, Tine M Søland3,4, Elisabeth Sivy Nginamau5, Helene Laurvik4, Daniela-Elena Costea5,6, Anne Christine Johannessen5,6, Peter Jebsen4, Inger-Heidi Bjerkli1,7, Lars Uhlin-Hansen1,2, Elin Hadler-Olsen1,2,8. 1. Department of Medical Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 2. Department of Clinical Pathology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 3. Department of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Pathology, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 5. Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 6. The Gade Laboratory of Pathology and Center for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 7. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 8. Department of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have been presented on histological grading of oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) for predicting survival, but uncertainty of their usefulness rises due to discordances of results. A scoring system should be robust and well validated, and intra- and interrater agreement can be used as a tool to visualize the strength of reproducibility. METHODS: Here, we present an intra- and inter-observer study on evaluation of OSCC using some of the most common histopathological parameters. The observers were from different Norwegian university hospitals, and calibration to ensure accuracy was first performed. Percentage of the agreement was calculated for the score made by the individual observer at different times, as well as between pairs of observers. RESULTS: The evaluation made by the same observer at two different time points (intrarater) correlated better than observations made by different participants (interrater). In an attempt to increase the rate of agreement, many of the parameters were either dichotomized into simply low- and high grade, or to a three-tier system when more than three options in the original design. This increased the concurrence with 15.4% for the intrarater and with 23% for the interrater comparisons. CONCLUSION: High agreement for histopathological parameters can be difficult to obtain on hematoxylin and eosin staining in scoring systems with many options. A simpler system might be more advantageous to achieve higher degree of reproducibility.
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have been presented on histological grading of oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) for predicting survival, but uncertainty of their usefulness rises due to discordances of results. A scoring system should be robust and well validated, and intra- and interrater agreement can be used as a tool to visualize the strength of reproducibility. METHODS: Here, we present an intra- and inter-observer study on evaluation of OSCC using some of the most common histopathological parameters. The observers were from different Norwegian university hospitals, and calibration to ensure accuracy was first performed. Percentage of the agreement was calculated for the score made by the individual observer at different times, as well as between pairs of observers. RESULTS: The evaluation made by the same observer at two different time points (intrarater) correlated better than observations made by different participants (interrater). In an attempt to increase the rate of agreement, many of the parameters were either dichotomized into simply low- and high grade, or to a three-tier system when more than three options in the original design. This increased the concurrence with 15.4% for the intrarater and with 23% for the interrater comparisons. CONCLUSION: High agreement for histopathological parameters can be difficult to obtain on hematoxylin and eosin staining in scoring systems with many options. A simpler system might be more advantageous to achieve higher degree of reproducibility.
Authors: Inger-Heidi Bjerkli; Elin Hadler-Olsen; Elisabeth Sivy Nginamau; Helene Laurvik; Tine M Søland; Daniela Elena Costea; Lars Uhlin-Hansen; Sonja E Steigen Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Moritz Jesinghaus; Melanie Boxberg; Maxime Schmitt; Mark Kriegsmann; Alexander Harms; Corinna Lang; Thomas Muley; Hauke Winter; Katharina Kriegsmann; Arne Warth; Albrecht Stenzinger; Carsten Denkert; Hans Hoffmann; Seyer Safi; Wilko Weichert Journal: J Pathol Clin Res Date: 2022-09-16