Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ

被引:49
|
作者
Sneige, N
Lagios, MD
Schwarting, R
Colburn, W
Atkinson, E
Weber, D
Sahin, A
Kemp, B
Hoque, A
Risin, S
Sabichi, A
Boone, C
Dhingra, K
Kelloff, G
Lippman, S
机构
[1] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Anat Pathol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biomath, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Clin Canc Prevent, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[4] St Marys Med Sch, Breast Canc Consultat Serv, San Francisco, CA USA
[5] Thomas Jefferson Univ Hosp, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[6] Tarzana Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, Tarzana, CA USA
[7] NCI, Div Canc Prevent & Control, Chemoprevent Branch, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[8] Eli Lilly Corp, Indiana, IN USA
关键词
ductal carcinoma in situ; nuclear grade; interobserver reproducibility; breast carcinoma;
D O I
10.1016/S0046-8177(99)90002-3
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Several studies have shown an association between high nuclear grade or necrosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions and the risk of local disease recurrence in patients with DCIS treated surgically with less than mastectomy. Although criteria for separating low from high nuclear grade lesions have been published, no information exists regarding interobserver reproducibility (IR). To assess IR in the classification of DCIS, six surgical pathologists from four institutions used the Lagios grading system to grade 125 DCIS lesions. Before meeting to evaluate the cases, a training set of 12 glass slides, including cases chosen to present conflicting cues for classification, was mailed to the participants with a written criteria summary. This was followed by a working session in which criteria were reviewed and agreed on. The pathologists then graded the lesions independently. The area of interest was marked on each slide before grading. After initial grading, the pathologists met again to resolve discrepant lesion classifications. A complete agreement among raters was achieved in 43 (35%) cases, with five of six raters agreeing in another 45 (36%) cases. In no case did two raters differ by more than one grade. The pairwise kappa agreement values ranged from fair:to substantial (0.30 to 0.61). Generalized kappa value indicated moderate agreement (0.46, standard error = 0.02). kappa statistics for the distinction between grades 1 and 2 and 2 and 3 were 0.29 and 0.48, respectively, (standard error = 0.02). Only one of the six raters differed significantly in scoring. With adherence to specific criteria, IR in the classification of DCIS cases can be obtained in most cases. Although these pathologists made a few grading system modifications, further refinements are needed, especially if grading will influence future therapy. HUM PATHOL 30:257-262. Copyright (C) 1999 by W.B. Saunders Company.
引用
收藏
页码:257 / 262
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason's grading system. Urologic pathologists
    Allsbrook, W
    Lane, R
    Lane, C
    Mangold, K
    Johnson, M
    Amin, M
    Bostwick, D
    Humphrey, P
    Jones, E
    Reuter, V
    Sakr, W
    Sesterhenn, I
    Troncoso, P
    Wheeler, T
    Epstein, JI
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 1998, 11 (01) : 75A - 75A
  • [32] Machine Learning Methods Reveal Intrinsic Features on Nuclear Grading in Breast Ductal Carcinoma in situ
    Yang, Libo
    Chen, Shu
    Lei, Chuanfen
    Chen, Jie
    Zhang, Zhang
    Yi, Yuhao
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2025, 105 (03)
  • [33] Grading and Study of Biological Markers in Ductal Carcinoma in situ and Concurrent Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma of Breast
    George, Lovely
    Pai, Muktha Ramesh
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2018, 12 (04) : EC1 - EC4
  • [34] A binary grading system for uterine endometrioid carcinomas is comparable to FIGO grading for predicting prognosis and has superior interobserver reproducibility compared to FIGO and nuclear grading.
    Lax, SF
    Ronnett, BM
    Pizer, ES
    Wu, L
    Kurman, RJ
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 1999, 79 (01) : 119A - 119A
  • [35] Interobserver agreement in the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Study design
    Groen, E.
    Visser, L.
    Elshof, L.
    Mulder, L.
    Schaapveld, M.
    Lips, E.
    Wesseling, J.
    VIRCHOWS ARCHIV, 2017, 471 : S296 - S297
  • [36] Histopathological Grading of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast - Validation of a Web-based Survey Through Intraobserver Reproducibility Analysis
    Schuh, F.
    Biazus, J. V.
    Resetkova, E.
    Benfica, C. Z.
    Ventura, A. F.
    Uchoa, D.
    Graudenz, M.
    Edelweiss, M. I.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2012, 48 : S91 - S92
  • [37] Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Reproducibility of histological subtype analysis
    Scott, MA
    Lagios, MD
    Axelsson, K
    Rogers, LW
    Anderson, TJ
    Page, DL
    HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 1997, 28 (08) : 967 - 973
  • [38] Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Bordering on Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Interobserver Variability and Outcomes in 105 Cases
    Tozbikian, Gary
    Brogi, Edi
    Vallejo, Christina E.
    Giri, Dilip
    Murray, Melissa
    Catalano, Jeffrey
    Olcese, Cristina
    Van Zee, Kimberly J.
    Wen, Hannah Yong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2017, 25 (02) : 100 - 107
  • [39] Interobserver variability of nuclear grading (NG) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
    Nazeer, T
    Amin, MB
    Delahunt, B
    Eble, JN
    Medeiros, LJ
    Storkel, S
    Ambros, RA
    Ro, JY
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 1998, 11 (01) : 91A - 91A
  • [40] Histologic Grading of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: Does Use of a Two-Tiered Nuclear Grading System Improve Interobserver Variability?
    Adams, A. L.
    Chhieng, D. C.
    Bell, W. C.
    Winokur, T.
    Hameed, O.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2009, 22 : 26A - 26A