Literature DB >> 9781641

Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorizing ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology.

J P Sloane1, I Amendoeira, N Apostolikas, J P Bellocq, S Bianchi, W Boecker, G Bussolati, D Coleman, C E Connolly, P Dervan, V Eusebi, C De Miguel, M Drijkoningen, C W Elston, D Faverley, A Gad, J Jacquemier, M Lacerda, J Martinez-Penuela, C Munt, J L Peterse, F Rank, M Sylvan, V Tsakraklides, B Zafrani.   

Abstract

The increased detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by mammographic screening, the greater use of breast-conserving surgery, and the recognition that certain histological subtypes are associated with a greater risk of local recurrence has led to the formulation of several new classifications of DCIS in recent years. There are, however, no data concerning the degree of consistency with which these schemes can be applied by reasonable numbers of pathologists. Thirty-three cases of DCIS were thus examined by a working group of 23 European pathologists who categorized them using five recently published classifications: (1) that of the European Pathologists' Working Group based on differentiation (a combination of nuclear grade and cell polarization) with categories of poorly, intermediately, and well differentiated; (2) one based entirely on nuclear grade with categories of high, intermediate, and low, currently in use in the UK national and EC-funded breast screening programs; (3) the same classification in which only two categories, high nuclear grade and other, were used; (4) the Van Nuys system in which lesions are divided into high grade, non-high grade with necrosis and non-high grade without necrosis; and (5) a two-category classification based entirely on the presence or absence of comedo necrosis. Of the three systems with three categories, Van Nuys gave the highest overall kappa statistic of 0.42. Others gave similar values of 0.37 and 0.35 showing that assessing cell polarization in addition to nuclear grade neither improves nor worsens consistency. In all three systems, the middle category was associated with the lowest value for kappa. Of the two systems with two categories, that based on nuclear grade gave the highest overall kappa of 0.46 and that based on comedo necrosis the lowest of 0.34. The most robust histological features were thus high- and low-grade nuclei and necrosis as long as the latter did not involve the recognition of a comedo growth pattern. These values probably represent the maximum achievable, at least by reasonable numbers of pathologists in everyday practice. They are better than those previously reported for classification based entirely on architecture, but further improvement is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9781641

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


  18 in total

1.  Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast.

Authors:  A G Douglas-Jones; J M Morgan; M A Appleton; R L Attanoos; A Caslin; C S Champ; M Cotter; N S Dallimore; A Dawson; R W Fortt; A P Griffiths; M Hughes; P A Kitching; C O'Brien; A M Rashid; D Stock; A Verghese; D W Williams; N W Williams; S Williams
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Pathological diagnosis of columnar cell lesions of the breast: are there issues of reproducibility?

Authors:  P H Tan; B C-S Ho; S Selvarajan; W M Yap; A Hanby
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Interobserver variability in upfront dichotomous histopathological assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the DCISion study.

Authors:  Serdar Altinay; Laurent Arnould; Noella Bletard; Cecile Colpaert; Franceska Dedeurwaerdere; Benjamin Dessauvagie; Valérie Duwel; Giuseppe Floris; Stephen Fox; Clara Gerosa; Shabnam Jaffer; Eline Kurpershoek; Magali Lacroix-Triki; Andoni Laka; Kathleen Lambein; Gaëtan Marie MacGrogan; Caterina Marchió; Dolores Martin Martinez; Sharon Nofech-Mozes; Dieter Peeters; Alberto Ravarino; Emily Reisenbichler; Erika Resetkova; Souzan Sanati; Anne-Marie Schelfhout; Vera Schelfhout; Abeer M Shaaban; Renata Sinke; Claudia Maria Stanciu-Pop; Claudia Stobbe; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Koen Van de Vijver; Anne-Sophie Van Rompuy; Stephanie Verschuere; Anne Vincent-Salomon; Hannah Wen; Hélène Dano; Caroline Bouzin; Christine Galant; Mieke R Van Bockstal
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 7.842

4.  The diagnostic challenge of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Donald L Weaver; Paul D Frederick; Kimberly H Allison; Anna N A Tosteson; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Gary M Longton; Heidi D Nelson; Natalia V Oster; Margaret S Pepe; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2017-05-20       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 5.  Significance of rat mammary tumors for human risk assessment.

Authors:  Jose Russo
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 1.902

Review 6.  Modern concepts of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and its diagnosis through percutaneous biopsy.

Authors:  Ute Kettritz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

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.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a surgical perspective.

Authors:  Mohammed Badruddoja
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-09-04

9.  Immunohistochemical categorisation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  P Meijnen; J L Peterse; N Antonini; E J Th Rutgers; M J van de Vijver
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-11-27       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Grade of recurrent in situ and invasive carcinoma following treatment of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  R R Millis; S E Pinder; K Ryder; R Howitt; S R Lakhani
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-04-19       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.