Literature DB >> 8986530

Comparison of the reproducibility of the WHO classifications of 1975 and 1994 of endometrial hyperplasia.

B G Skov1, H Broholm, U Engel, M B Franzmann, A L Nielsen, A F Lauritzen, T Skov.   

Abstract

In a blinded, randomized design, six histopathologists with an interest in gynecological pathology examined the inter- and intraobserver variation of the histopathological diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of 1975 and the new WHO classification of 1994. On four occasions, the pathologists assessed hematoxylin/eosin-stained slides from 128 cases originally diagnosed and coded in the Snomed system as endometrial hyperplasia. In the first and third rounds, the slides were classified according to the 1975 classification and in the second and fourth rounds according to the 1994 classification. The overall interobserver agreement in the two rounds where the 1975 classification was used was 0.47 and 0.51, and the kappa values 0.24 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.27] and 0.30 (95% CI 0.27-0.33). The overall interobserver agreement in the two rounds using the 1994 classification was 0.45 and 0.41 and the kappa values 0.25 (95% CI 0.23-0.28) and 0.20 (95% CI 0.17-0.22). Reducing the classification to two categories with clinical significance (atypical endometrial hyperplasia versus others in the 1975 classification, and atypical endometrial hyperplasia, complex versus others in the 1994 classification) increased the overall agreement of the 1975 classification in both rounds to 0.91 and of the 1994 classification to 0.92 and 0.90. The kappa values increased to 0.54 (95% CI 0.49-0.58) and 0.49 (95% CI 0.45-0.54) in the 1975 classification and to 0.59 (95% CI 0.54-0.63) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.37-0.46) in the 1994 classification. The intraobserver overall agreement for the 1975 classification ranged from 0.80 to 0.55 and the kappa values from 0.70 (95% CI 0.58-0.81) to 0.28 (95% CI 0.17-0.39). The intraobserver overall agreement for the 1994 classification ranged from 0.71 to 0.46 and the kappa values from 0.60 (95% CI 0.51-0.70) to 0.20 (95% CI 0.09-0.30). It is concluded that there is considerable inter- and intraobserver variation using both the 1975 and the 1994 classifications of endometrial hyperplasia. We propose that there is need for a specification and for a simplification of the classification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 8986530     DOI: 10.1097/00004347-199701000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol        ISSN: 0277-1691            Impact factor:   2.762


  17 in total

1.  Biomarkers of progestin therapy resistance and endometrial hyperplasia progression.

Authors:  Kristen Upson; Kimberly H Allison; Susan D Reed; Carolyn D Jordan; Katherine M Newton; Elizabeth M Swisher; Jennifer A Doherty; Rochelle L Garcia
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 2.  EIN and WHO94.

Authors:  J P A Baak; G L Mutter
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  PAX2 loss by immunohistochemistry occurs early and often in endometrial hyperplasia.

Authors:  Kimberly H Allison; Kristen Upson; Susan D Reed; Carolyn D Jordan; Katherine M Newton; Jennifer Doherty; Elizabeth M Swisher; Rochelle L Garcia
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.762

4.  Incidence of endometrial hyperplasia.

Authors:  Susan D Reed; Katherine M Newton; Walter L Clinton; Meira Epplein; Rochelle Garcia; Kimberly Allison; Lynda F Voigt; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-04-23       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Risk of subsequent endometrial carcinoma associated with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classification of endometrial biopsies.

Authors:  James V Lacey; George L Mutter; Marisa R Nucci; Brigitte M Ronnett; Olga B Ioffe; Brenda B Rush; Andrew G Glass; Douglas A Richesson; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Bryan Langholz; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  My approach to the interpretation of endometrial biopsies and curettings.

Authors:  W G McCluggage
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Comparison of WHO and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia classifications in predicting the presence of coexistent malignancy in endometrial hyperplasia.

Authors:  Mehmet Coskun Salman; Alp Usubutun; Kubra Boynukalin; Kunter Yuce
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 4.401

8.  Diagnosing endometrial hyperplasia: why is it so difficult to agree?

Authors:  Kimberly H Allison; Susan D Reed; Lynda F Voigt; Carolyn D Jordan; Kathryn M Newton; Rochelle L Garcia
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 6.394

9.  Significance of concurrent endometrial cancer in women with a preoperative diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia.

Authors:  Kurt Christopher Giede; Tin-Wing Yen; Rajni Chibbar; Roger A Pierson
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2008-10

Review 10.  The endometrial hyperplasias revisited.

Authors:  Efthimios Sivridis; Alexandra Giatromanolaki
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2008-08-23       Impact factor: 4.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.