Hyperplastic ductal and lobular lesions and carcinomas in situ of the breast: Reproducibility of current diagnostic criteria among community- and academic-based pathologists

Breast Journal

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 230-237

  Palazzo, Juan P ^a   Hyslop, Terry ^b  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Carcinomas in situ; Ductal and lobular hyperplasias of the breast; Reproducibility of diagnosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST DUCT; BREAST HYPERPLASIA; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 0031871284     PISSN: 1075122X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4741.1998.440230.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Page DL, Dupont WL, Rogers LW, Landenberger M. Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only. Cancer 1982;49:751-58.
2. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast: a long-term follow-up study. Cancer 1985;55:2698-708.
3. Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ. A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer 1990;65:518-29.
4. Page DL, Rogers LW. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 1992;23:1095-97.
5. Haagensen CD, Lane N, Lattes R, Bodian C. Lobular neoplasia (so-called lobular carcinoma in situ) of the breast. Cancer 1978;42:737-69.
6. Rosen PP, Lieberman PH, Braun DW, Jr, Kosloff C, Adair F. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: detailed analysis of 99 patients with average follow-up of 24 years. Am J Surg Pathol 1978;2:225-51.
7. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:209-21.
8. Swanson Beck J. Observer variability in reporting of breast lesions. J Clin Pathol 1985;38:1358-65.
9. Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R, Hoffmann P. Reproducibility and validity of pathologic classifications of benign breast disease and implications for clinical applications. Cancer 1993;71:3908-13.
10. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:1133-43.
11. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.
12. Seigel DG, Podgor MJ, Remaley NA. Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135:571-78.
13. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968;70:213-20.
14. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma: a reproducibility study. Cancer 1994;73: 2765-70.
15. Bloodgood JC. Cancer of the breast. Figures which show that education can increase the number of cures. JAMA 1916;66:552-53.
16. Bloodgood JC. The pathology of chronic cystic mastitis of the female breast. Arch Surg 1921;111:445-542.
17. Bloodgood JC. Borderline breast tumors. Encapsulated non-encapsulated cystic adenomata observed from 1890 to 1931. Am J Cancer 1932;16:103-76.
18. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements Through Release 6.11. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1996:1104.
19. Tavassoli FA. Mammary intraepithelial neoplasia: a translational classification system for the intraductal epithelial proliferations. Breast J 1997;3:48-58.