Short- And long-term effects of a training session on pathologists' performance: The INQAT experience for histological grading in breast cancer

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 279-281

  Paradiso, A ^a   Ellis, I O ^b   Zito, F A ^a   Marubini, E ^c   Pizzamiglio, S ^d   Verderio, P ^d  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE GIOVANNI PAOLO II   (Italy)

^b NOTTINGHAM CITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; TELEPATHOLOGY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 61849181547     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: 14724146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2008.061036     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Chowdhury N, Pai MR, Lobo FD, et al. Impact of an increase in grading categories and double reporting on the reliability of breast cancer grade. APMIS 2007;115:360-6.
2. Longacre TA, Ennis M, Quenneville LA, et al. Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study. Mod Pathol 2006;19:195- 207.
3. Griffiths DF, Melia J, McWilliam LJ, et al. A study of Gleason score interpretation in different groups of UK pathologists; techniques for improving reproducibility. Histopathology 2006;48:655-62.
4. Tsuda H, Akiyama F, Kurosumi M, et al. The efficacy and limitations of repeated slide conferences for improving interobserver agreement when judging nuclear atypia of breast cancer. The Japan National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (NSAS- BC) Pathology Section. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1999;29:68-73.
5. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/ College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:118-45.
6. Paradiso A, Volpe S, lacobacci A, et al. The experience of the Italian Network for Quality Assessment of Tumor Biomarkers (INQAT). Int J Biol Markers 2002;17:201-14.
7. Italian Network for Quality Assurance of Tumor Biomarkers (INQAT) Group. Quality control for histological grading in breast cancer: an Italian experience. Pathologica 2005;97:1-6.
8. 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.
9. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 1995;26:873-9.
10. Landis R, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.