Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast pathology: Practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS)

BMC Women's Health

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Oster, Natalia V ^a   Carney, Patricia A ^b   Allison, Kimberly H ^c   Weaver, Donald L ^d   Reisch, Lisa M ^a   Longton, Gary ^e   Onega, Tracy ^f   Pepe, Margaret ^e   Geller, Berta M ^d   Nelson, Heidi D ^g   Ross, Tyler R ^a   Tosteson, N Anna ^f   Elmore, Joann G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^e Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^f DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^g OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Agreement studies; Breast; Diagnostic techniques; Pathology; Reliability of results; Reporting guidelines

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL DUCTAL HYPERPLASIA; BIOPSY; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; DELPHI STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RELIABILITY;

EID: 84873260151     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726874     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-13-3     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hrobjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64(1):96-106.
2. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, Fechner RE, Kempson RL, Gelman R, Page DL. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992, 16(12):1133-1143.
3. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 1991, 15(3):209-221.
4. Petralia G, Bonello L, Summers P, Preda L, Malasevschi A, Raimondi S, Di Filippi R, Locatelli M, Curigliano G, Renne G. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the calculation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) of breast tumours. Radiol Med 2011, 116(3):466-476.
5. Imamura T, Isomoto I, Sueyoshi E, Yano H, Uga T, Abe K, Hayashi T, Honda S, Yamaguchi T, Uetani M. Diagnostic performance of ADC for Non-mass-like breast lesions on MR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 2010, 9(4):217-225.
6. Darvishian F, Singh B, Simsir A, Ye W, Cangiarella JF. Atypia on breast core needle biopsies: reproducibility and significance. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2009, 39(3):270-276.
7. Haupt B, Schwartz MR, Xu Q, Ro JY. Columnar cell lesions: a consensus study among pathology trainees. Hum Pathol 2010, 41(6):895-901.
8. Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Tosteson AN, Greenberg ER. Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology. JNCI 1998, 90(2):142-145.
9. Weaver DL, Vacek PM, Skelly JM, Geller BM. Predicting biopsy outcome after mammography: what is the likelihood the patient has invasive or in situ breast cancer?. Ann Surg Oncol 2005, 12(8):660-673.
10. Breast cancer surveillance consortium 2011, Available at: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov. Accessed June 1, 2011.
11. Carney PA, Poplack SP, Wells WA, Littenberg B. The New hampshire mammography network: the development and design of a population-based registry. Am J Roentgenol 1996, 167(2):367-372.
12. Carney PA, Geller BM, Moffett H, Ganger M, Sewell M, Barlow WE, Stalnaker N, Taplin SH, Sisk C, Ernster VL. Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000, 152(4):371-378.
13. Weaver DL, Rosenberg RD, Barlow WE, Ichikawa L, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Geller BM, Key CR, Maygarden SJ. Pathologic findings from the breast cancer surveillance consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography. Cancer 2006, 106(4):732-742.
14. Collins LC, Connolly JL, Page DL, Goulart RA, Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Berg WA, Caudry DJ, McNeil BJ, Schnitt SJ. Diagnostic agreement in the evaluation of image-guided breast core needle biopsies: results from a randomized clinical trial. Amer J Surg Path 2004, 28(1):126-131.
15. Ginsburg OM, Martin LJ, Boyd NF. Mammographic density, lobular involution, and risk of breast cancer. Brit J Cancer 2008, 99(9):1369-1374.
16. Helmer-Hirschberg O. The systematic Use of expert judgment in operations research 2012, Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P2795.html. Accessed August.
17. Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, de Stavola BL, Goldman MB, Kalish LA, Kasten LE, McCormack VA. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ 2004, 329(7471):883.
18. Honest H, Khan KS. Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature. BMC Health Serv Res 2002, 2:4.
19. Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, Ostelo RW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2005, 235(2):347-353.
20. Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, Ostelo RW, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved?. Neurology 2006, 67(5):792-797.
21. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme Quality assurance guidelines for breast pathology services 2011, 2, Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp02.pdf. Accessed December 2012, National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.
22. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, Lijmer JG. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003, 138(1):W1-W12.
23. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994, 331(22):1493-1499.
24. Sztajzel JM, Picard-Kossovsky M, Lerch R, Vuille C, Sarasin FP. Accuracy of cardiac auscultation in the era of doppler-echocardiography: a comparison between cardiologists and internists. Int J Cardiol 2010, 138(3):308-310.
25. Egglin TK, Feinstein AR. Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996, 276(21):1752-1755.
26. Bankier AA, Levine D, Halpern EF, Kressel HY. Consensus interpretation in imaging research: is there a better way?. Radiology 2010, 257(1):14-17.
27. Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Perrin RL, Poller WR, Shah R, Sumkin JH. The " laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 2008, 249(1):47-53.
28. Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 2003, 228(2):303-308.
29. Weller SC, Mann NC. Assessing rater performance without a " gold standard" using consensus theory. Med Decis Making 1997, 17(1):71-79.
30. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, Barlow WE, Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Edwards BK. Breast cancer surveillance consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169(4):1001-1008.