The importance of cytologic intrarater and interrater reproducibility: The case of ductal lavage

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 15, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 2553-2556

  Visvanathan, Kala ^a,b,d   Santor, Deborah ^a   Ali, Syed Z ^d   Hong, In Soon ^e   Davidson, Nancy E ^b,d   Helzlsouer, Kathy J ^a,c  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MERCY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e HOWARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DUCT; BREAST EPITHELIUM; CANCER CELL; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EPITHELIUM CELL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; LAVAGE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IRRIGATION; MAMMARY GLANDS, HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 33846015813     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0578     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Dooley WC, Ljung BM, Veronesi U, et al. Ductal lavage for detection of cellular atypia in women at high risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1624-32.
2. The uniform approach to breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy. NIH consensus development conference. Am J Surg 1997;174:371-85.
3. Brogi E, Robson M, Panageas KS, Casadio C, Ljung BM, Montgomery L. Ductal lavage in patients undergoing mastectomy for mammary carcinoma: a correlative study. Cancer 2003;98:2170-6.
4. Khan SA, Wiley EL, Rodriguez N, et al. Ductal lavage findings in women with known breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1510-7.
5. Johnson-Maddux A, Ashfaq R, Cler L, et al. Reproducibility of cytologic atypia in repeat nipple duct lavage. Cancer 2005;103:1129-36.
6. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
7. Ljung BM, Chew KL, Moore DH II, King EB. Cytology of ductal lavage fluid of the breast. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:143-50.
8. Gornstein B, Jacobs T, Bedard Y, et al. Interobserver agreement of a probabilistic approach to reporting breast fine-needle aspirations on ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:389-95.
9. Sidawy MK, Stoler MH, Frable WJ, et al. Interobserver variability in the classification of proliferative breast lesions by fine-needle aspiration: results of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Study. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:150-65.
10. Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Bonardi L, et al. Analysis of morphologic patterns of fine-needle aspiration of the breast to reduce false-negative results in breast cytology. Cancer 2005;105:152-7.
11. Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Mayo MS, Khan SA. Breast-tissue sampling for risk assessment and prevention. Endocr Relat Cancer 2005;12:185-213.
12. Ljung BM, Drejet A, Chiampi N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy is determined by physician training in sampling technique. Cancer 2001;93:263-8.
13. Brogi E, Miller MJ, Casadio C, Lyung BM, Montgomery L. Paired ductal lavage and fine-needle aspiration specimens from patients with breast carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;33:370-5.