Quality control for histological grading in breast cancer: An italian experience

Pathologica

Volumn 97, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-6

  Cortese, M E ^a   Marubini, E ^b   Paradiso, A ^c   Rosai, J ^a   Saragoni, L ^d   Verderio, Paolo ^a   Aldi, M ^e   Andreini, L ^f   Bianchi, S ^g   Cossu Rocca, P ^h   De Rosa, G ⁱ   Giardina, C ^j   Lanzanova, G ^k   Marandino, F ^l   Marzullo, F ^m   Nuzzo, F ⁿ   Ravarino, N ⁱ   Ricci, M ^o   Zito, A ^m  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^c Instituto Oncologico   (Italy)

^d MORGAGNI PIERANTONI HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^e Ospedale per gli Infermi di Faenza   (Italy)

^f AUSL Imola   (Italy)

^g UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^h UNIVERSITY OF SASSARI   (Italy)

ⁱ MAURIZIANO HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^j UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

^k Ospedale Civile   (Italy)

^l REGINA ELENA NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^m NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE GIOVANNI PAOLO II   (Italy)

ⁿ Presidio Ospedaliero Bufalini   (Italy)

^o OSPEDALE DEGLI INFERMI   (Italy)

more..

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Histological grading; Interobserver reproducibility; Intraobserver reproducibility; Quality control

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; ITALY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MITOSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; ITALY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 20444410372     PISSN: 00312983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Patel C, Sidhu KP, Shah MJ, Patel SM. Role of mitotic counts in the grading and prognosis of the breast cancer. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2002;45:247-54.
2. Lynch J, Pattekar R, Barnes DM, Hanby AM, Camplejohn RS, Ryder K, et al. Mitotic counts provide additional prognostic information in mammary carcinoma. J Pathol 2002;196:275-279
3. Yang Q, Mori I, Sakurai T, Yoshimura G, Suzurna T, Nakamura Y, et al. Correlation between nuclear grade and biological prognostic variables in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2001;8:105-10.
4. Dalton LW, Pinder SE, Elston CE, Ellis IO, Page DL, Dupont WD, et al. Histologic grading of breast cancer: linkage of patient outcome with level of pathologist agreement. Mod Pathol 2000; 13:730-5.
5. Genestie C, Zafrani B, Asselain B, Fourquet A, Rozan S, Validire P, et al. Comparison of the prognostic value of Searff-Bloom-Richardson and Nottingham histological grades in a series of 825 cases of breast cancer: major importance of the mitotic count as a component of both grading systems. Anticancer Res 1998;18:571-6.
6. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, Dawkins H, Harvey J, Sterrett G, et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 1995;26:873-9.
7. Volpi A, Bacci F, Paradiso A, Saragom L, Scarpi E, Ricci M, et al. Prognostic relevance of histological grade and its components in node-negative breast cancer patients. Mod Pathol 2004;17:1038-44.
8. Medri L, Volpi A, Nanni O, Vecci AM, Mangia A, Schittulli F, et al. Prognostic relevance of mitotic activity in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2003; 16:1067-75.
9. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer: I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991;19:403-10.
10. Harvey JM, de Klerk NH, Sterrett GF. Histological grading in breast cancer: interobserver agreement, and relation to other prognostic factors including ploidy. Pathology 1992;24:63-8.
11. Brown JM, Benson EA, Jones M. Confirmation of a long-term prognostic index in breast cancer. Breast 1993;2:144-7.
12. Henson DE, Ries L, Freedman LS, Carriaga M. Relationship among outcome, stage of disease and histologic grade for 22,616 cases of breast cancer. The basis for a prognostic index. Cancer 1991;68:2142-9.
13. Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO. The Nottingham prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1992;22:207-19.
14. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3357-65.
15. Schnitt SJ. Traditional and newer pathologic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001;30:22-6.
16. Paradiso A, Volpe S, Iacobacci A, Marubini E, Verderio P, et al. Quality control for biomarker determination in oncology: the experience of the Italian Network for Quality Assessment of Tumor Biomarkers (INQAT). Int J Biol Markers 2002; 17:201-14.
17. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley and Sons 1981.
18. Italian Network for Quality Assurance of Tumor Biomarkers (IN-QAT) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of imnumohistochemical HER-21neu evaluation in human breast cancer: the real-world experience. Int J Biol Markers 2004;19:147-54.
19. Holman CD. Analysis of interobserver variation on a programmable calculator. Am J Epidemiol 1984; 120:154-61.
20. Landis R, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:117-27.
21. Contesso G, Mouriesse H, Friedman S, Genin J, Sarrazin D, Rouesse J. The importance of histologic grade in long-term prognosis of breast cancer: a study of 1010 patients, uniformly treated at the Institut Gustave-Roussy. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:1378-86.
22. Davis BW, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A. Hartmann WH, Locher GW, Reed R, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor grade in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis. Cancer 1986;58:2662-70.
23. Cutler SJ, Black MM, Friedell GH, Vidone RA, Goldenberg IS. Prognostic factors in cancer of female breast. II. Reproducibility of histopathologic classification. Cancer 1966; 19:75-82.
24. Theissig F, Kunze D, Haroske G, Meyer W. Histological grading of breast cancer: Interobserver reproducibility and prognostic significance. Path Res Pract 1990;186:732-6.