Evaluation of the use of digital images for a national prostate core external quality assurance scheme

Histopathology

Volumn 59, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 703-709

  Harnden, Patricia ^a   Coleman, Derek ^b   Moss, Sue ^b   Kodikara, Sandhya ^b   Griffin, Nick R ^a   Melia, Jane ^b  

^a ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Image processing; Observer variation; Prostate neoplasms pathology; Quality assurance; Reproducibility of results; Telepathology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MALE; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITY CONTROL;

BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MICROSCOPY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; TELEPATHOLOGY; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 80054946160     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03987.x     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), Guidance on Cancer Service. Improving outcomes in urological cancers. 2002. Available at: (accessed November 2010).
2. Ellis IO, Coleman D, Wells C et al. Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK. J. Clin. Pathol. 2006; 59; 138-145.
3. Sloane JP, Ellman R, Anderson TJ et al. Consistency of histopathological reporting of breast lesions detected by screening: findings of the UK. National external quality assessment (EQA) scheme. UK National Coordinating Group for breast screening pathology. Eur. J. Cancer 1994; 30A; 1414-1419.
4. Harnden P, Coleman D, Moss S, Kodikara S, Patnick J, Melia J. Prostatic pathology reporting in the UK: development of a national external quality assurance scheme. Histopathology 2008; 52; 147-157.
5. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Measure. 1960; 20; 37-46.
6. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33; 159-174.
7. Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY et al. A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 2006; 48; 644-654.
8. Helin H, Lundin M, Lundin J et al. Web-based virtual microscopy in teaching and standardizing Gleason grading. Hum. Pathol. 2005; 36; 381-386.
9. Montironi R, Thompson D, Scarpelli M et al. Transcontinental communication and quantitative digital histopathology via the Internet; with special reference to prostate neoplasia. J. Clin. Pathol. 2002; 55; 452-460.
10. Oyama T, Allsbrook WC Jr, Kurokawa K et al. A comparison of interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in Japan and the United States. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2005; 129; 1004-1010.
11. Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. A web-based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation of a new medical education paradigm. Cancer 2000; 89; 1818-1823.
12. Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC Jr et al. Pathology residents' use of a web-based tutorial to improve Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma on needle biopsies. Hum. Pathol. 2000; 31; 1044-1050.