Interobserver variation in breast cancer grading: A statistical modeling approach

Analytical and Quantitative Cytology and Histology

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 213-218

  Chowdhury, Nilotpal ^a,b   Pai, Muktha R ^a,c   Lobo, Flora D ^a,c   Kini, Hema ^a,c   Varghese, Rebecca ^a,c  

^a KASTURBA MEDICAL COLLEGE   (India)

^b JAWAHARLAL INSTITUTE OF POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH   (India)

^c Department of Pathology ^*

Author keywords

Carcinoma, breast; Grading; Random error; Reliability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER GRADING; CELL NUCLEUS; CELL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MCNEMAR TEST; MITOSIS; NOTTINGHAM CRITERIA; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOM ERROR; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STUART MAXWELL TEST; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE;

EID: 33746684302     PISSN: 08846812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Eiston 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;19:403-410
2. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD: Histologic grading of breast carcinoma: A reproducibility study. Cancer 1994;73: 2765-2770
3. Frierson HF, Wolber RA, Berean KW, Franquemont DW, Gaffey MJ, Boyd JC, Wilbur DC: Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:195-199
4. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, Dawkins H, Harvey J, Sterrett G, Ellis I, Elston C: Histological grading of breast carcinomas: A study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 1995;26:873-879
5. Delides GS, Garas G, Georgouli G, Jiortziotis D, Lecca J, Liva T, Elemenoglou J: Intralaboratory variations in the grading of breast carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1982;106:126-128
6. Gilchrist KW, Kalish L, Gould VE, Hirschl S, Imbriglia JE, Levy WM, Patchefsky AS, Penner DW, Pickren J, Roth JA, Schinella RA, Schwartz IS, Wheeler JE: Interobserver reproducibility of histopathological features in stage II breast cancer: An ECOG study (abstr). Breast Cancer Res Treat 1985;5:3-10
7. Sloane JP, Ellman R, Anderson TJ, Brown CL, Coyne J, Dallimore NS, Davies JD, Eakins D, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Humphreys S, Lawrence D, Lowe J, McGee OD, Millis RR, Nottingham J, Ryley N, Scott DJ, Sloan JM, Theaker J, Trott PA, Wells CA, Zakhour HD: Consistency of histopathological reporting of breast lesions detected by screening, findings of the U K National External Quality Assessment (EQA) scheme: UK National Coordinating group for breast screening pathology. Eur J Cancer 1994;30:1414-1419
8. Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, Olson N, Russo I, Glass A, Zehnbauer BA, Lister K, Parawesch R: Breast carcinoma grading by Bloom-Richardson grading system vs proliferation index: Reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 2005;18:1067-1078
9. Uebersax JS: Modeling approaches for the analysis of observer agreement. Invest Radiol 1992;27:738-742
10. Hripcsak G, Heitjan DF: Measuring agreement in medical informatics reliability studies. J Biomed Informatics 2002;35: 99-110
11. Maxwell AE: Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. Br J Psychiatry 1970;116:651-655
12. McNemar Q: Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947;12:153-157
13. Flora DB, Curran PJ: An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 2004;9:466-491
14. Kraemer HC, Periyakoil VS, Noda A: Tutorial in biostatistics kappa coefficients in medical research. Statist Med 2002;21: 2109-2129
15. Kronqvist P, Montironi R, Kuopio T, Collan Y: Subjective breast cancer grading: Analysis of reproducibility of Bayesian Belief Networks. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1997;19:423-429
16. Davis BW, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Hartmann WH, Locher GW, Reed R, Golouh R, Save-Soderbergh J, Holloway L, Russell I, Rudenstam CM: Prognostic significance of tumor grade in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis. Cancer 1986;58:2662-2670
17. Dunne B, Going JJ: Scoring nuclear pleomorphism in breast cancer. Histopathol 2001;39:259-265
18. Contesso G, Mouriesse H, Friedman S, Genin J, Sarrazen D, Rouesse J: The importance of histologic grade in long term prognosis of breast cancer: A study of 1,010 patients uniformly treated at the Institut Gustave-Roussy. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:1378-1386
19. Tsuda H, Akiyama F, Kurosumi M, Sakamoto G, Watanabe T: Establishment of histological criteria for high-risk node-negative breast carcinoma for a multi-institutional randomized clinical trial of adjuvant therapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1998; 28:486-491
20. Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S, Hacene K, Spyratos F, Brunet M: Prognostic value of histologic grade nuclear components of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR): An improved score modification based on a multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 1989;64:1914-1921
21. Helpap B: Nucleolar grading of breast cancer: Comparative studies on frequency and localization of nucleoli and histology, stage, hormonal receptor status and lectin histochemistry. Virchows Arch (A) 1989;415:501-508