Volume 32, Issue 6 (September 2021)
Studies in Medical Sciences 2021, 32(6): 419-427 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abbasi F, PourJabali M, Javanmard F, Fattahi H. EVALUATION OF INTEROBSERVER DISCREPANCY IN HISTOLOGIC GRADING OF BREAST CARCINOMA, PAPILLARY BLADDER CARCINOMA, AND SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA. Studies in Medical Sciences 2021; 32 (6) :419-427
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-5362-en.html
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-5362-en.html
Associate Professor of Pathology, Solid Tumor Research Center, Cellular and Molecular Medicine Institute, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran. (Corresponding Author) , abbasi.f@umsu.ac.ir
Abstract: (2419 Views)
Background & Aims: Histologic tumor grading is a well-documented useful, inexpensive and easily done prognostic factor but it shows many differences when viewed by multiple pathologists. The aim of the present study was to determine the interobserver differences in tumor grading among pathologists in Urmia, Imam Khomeini Hospital.
Materials & Methods: In this descriptive, analytical retrospective study, 50 cases of breast carcinoma, urothelial papillary tumor and soft tissue sarcoma were evaluated. Three pathologists reviewed all slides and graded the tumors after codifying and without any knowledge of the opinion of each other. The interobserver concordance was determined by K statistics. A p< 0.05 is considered significant.
Results: The interobserver concordance was fair in grading of breast, and bladder carcinoma and moderate in soft tissue sarcoma (Kappa was 0.3, 0.13 and 0.603, respectively). Based on the evaluation of factors included in histologic grading, the agreement was higher for pleomorphism in breast cancer, cellular thickness layer in bladder tumor, and cellular differentiation in soft tissue sarcoma (Kappa was 0.8, 0.28 and 0.65, respectively(.
Conclusion: According to our results, interobserver concordance in the grading of different tumors was fair. To solve this problem, it is suggested to do grading more than one time and in different microscopic fields. Simultaneous grading by two pathologists with multi-head microscope or considering the average of what two pathologists achieve separately can be useful.
Materials & Methods: In this descriptive, analytical retrospective study, 50 cases of breast carcinoma, urothelial papillary tumor and soft tissue sarcoma were evaluated. Three pathologists reviewed all slides and graded the tumors after codifying and without any knowledge of the opinion of each other. The interobserver concordance was determined by K statistics. A p< 0.05 is considered significant.
Results: The interobserver concordance was fair in grading of breast, and bladder carcinoma and moderate in soft tissue sarcoma (Kappa was 0.3, 0.13 and 0.603, respectively). Based on the evaluation of factors included in histologic grading, the agreement was higher for pleomorphism in breast cancer, cellular thickness layer in bladder tumor, and cellular differentiation in soft tissue sarcoma (Kappa was 0.8, 0.28 and 0.65, respectively(.
Conclusion: According to our results, interobserver concordance in the grading of different tumors was fair. To solve this problem, it is suggested to do grading more than one time and in different microscopic fields. Simultaneous grading by two pathologists with multi-head microscope or considering the average of what two pathologists achieve separately can be useful.
Keywords: Interobserver Variability, Grading, Breast Cancer, Bladder Papillary Carcinoma, Soft Tissue Sarcoma
References
1. Telagi N, Ahmed Mujib BR. Importance of pursuing a scone opinion before arriving at final diagnosis. Int J Med Public Health 2014;4(4):527-8. [DOI:10.4103/2230-8598.144140]
2. Westra WH, Hronz JD, Eisele DW. The impact of second opinion surgical pathology on the practice of head and neck surgery: a decade experience at a large referral hospital. Head Neck 2002;24:684-93. [DOI:10.1002/hed.10105] [PMID]
3. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, Young ML. Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. Arch pathol Lab Med 2002; 126:961-3. [DOI:10.5858/2002-126-0961-BRAAMF] [PMID]
4. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Patol 2006; 125:737-9. [DOI:10.1309/6A0RAX9KCR8VWCG4]
5. Ira J. Bleiweiss- look again: The importance of second opinions in Brest Pathology.J Clin Oncol 2012:30(18):2227-31. [DOI:10.1200/JCO.2012.42.1255] [PMID]
6. Hahm GK, Niemann TH, Lucas JC, Frankle WL. The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Arch pathol Lab Med 2001;125:736-9. [DOI:10.5858/2001-125-0736-TVOSOI] [PMID]
7. Middeltone LP, Feeley TW, Albright HW, Walters R, Hamilton SH. Second - opinion pathologic review is a patient safety mechanism tha helps reduce error and decrease waster. J Oncol Pract 2014;10(4): 275-80. [DOI:10.1200/JOP.2013.001204] [PMID]
8. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Granter SR, Gould EW. Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology of biopsy material. AM J Clin Pathol 2003; 119:797-800. [DOI:10.1309/DCXAXFVCCHVHYU41] [PMID]
9. Trotter MJ, Bruecks AK. Interpretation of skin biopsies by general pathologists diagnostic discrepancy rate measured by blinded review. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003; 127:1489-92. [DOI:10.5858/2003-127-1489-IOSBBG] [PMID]
10. Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, Olson N, Russo J et al. Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 2005:18(8):1067-78. [DOI:10.1038/modpathol.3800388] [PMID]
11. Boiesen P, Bendahi PO, Anagnostki L, Domanski H, Holm E, Idvall I, et al. Histologic grading in breast cancer--reproducibility between seven pathologic departments. South Sweden Breast Cancer Group. Acta Oncol 2000;39(1):41-5. [DOI:10.1080/028418600430950] [PMID]
12. Engers R. Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms. World J Urol 2007;25(6);595-605. [DOI:10.1007/s00345-007-0209-0] [PMID]
13. Shim JW, Cho KS, Choi YD, Park YW, Lee DW, Han WS, et al. Diagnostic algorithm for papillary urothelial tumors in the urinary bladder. Virchows Arch 2008;452(4):353-62. [DOI:10.1007/s00428-008-0585-x] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Goldblum IR, Lamps LW, Mckenney IK, Myers JL. Rosai and Ackerman's Surgical Pathology. 11th ed. Philadelphia, Elsevier; 2018. [Google Book]
15. Hasegawa T, Yamamoto S, Nojima T, Hirose T, Nikaido T, Yamishiro K, et al. Validity and reproducibility of histologic diagnosis and grading for adult soft-tissue sarcomas. Hum Pathol 2002;33(1):111-5. [DOI:10.1053/hupa.2002.30184] [PMID]
16. Komaki K, Sano N, Tangoku A. Problems in histological grading of malignancy and its clinical significance in patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2006;13(3):249-53. [DOI:10.2325/jbcs.13.249] [PMID]
17. Chowdhury N, Pai MR, Lobo FD. Kini H, Varghase R. Interobserver variation in breast cancer grading: a statistical modeling approach. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2006;28(4):213-8. [PMID]
18. Chowdhury N, Pai MR, Lobo FD, Kini H, Varghese R. Impact of an increase in grading categories and double reporting on the reliability of breast cancer grade. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol scand 2007;115(4):360-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0463.2007.apm_560.x] [PMID]
19. Nabebina TI, Rolevich AI, Dubrovsky A Ch, Krasny SA. Interobserver reproducibility in defining morphological parameters of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer with poor prognosis. Cancer Urolo 2016;12(1):21-8. [DOI:10.17650/1726-9776-2016-12-1-21-28]
20. Goldblum JR. Holpe AL, Weiss SW. Enzinger & weiss's soft Tissue Tumores. 6th ed. Elsevier, senders; 2018. [URL]
21. Rabe K, Snir OL, Bossuyt V, Harigopol M. Celli R, Reisenbichder ES. Interobserver variability in breast carcinoma grading results in prognostic stage differences. Hum Pathol 2019; 94:51-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.humpath.2019.09.006] [PMID]
22. Ginter PS, Idress R, Alfonso TMD, Fineberg S, Jaffer S, Sattar A.Histologic grading of breast carcinoma: a multi- institution study of interobserver variation using virtual microscopy. Mod Pathol 2021;34(4):701-709 [DOI:10.1038/s41379-020-00698-2] [PMID] [PMCID]
23. Yap FW, Rasotto R, Priestnall SL, Parsons KJ, Stewart J. Intra- and inter- observer agreement in histological assessment of canine soft tissue sarcoma. Vet Camp Oncol 2017;15(4):1553-1557 [DOI:10.1111/vco.12300] [PMID]
24. Thway K, Wang J, Fisher C. Histopathological diagnostic discrepancies in soft tissue tumours referred to a specialist centre: Reassessment in the Era of Ancillary Molecular Diagnosis. Sarcoma 2014;2014:686902. [DOI:10.1155/2014/686902] [PMID] [PMCID]
25. Rogers CL, Perry A, Pugh S, Vogelbaum MA, Brachman D, McMilan W. Pathology concordance levels for meningioma classification and grading in NRG Oncology RTOG Trial 0539. Neuro-Oncol 2016;18(4):565-74. [DOI:10.1093/neuonc/nov247] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Eefling D, Schrage YM, Geirnaredt MJ, Le Cessie S, Taminiau AH, Bovee JV, et al. Assessment of interobserver variability and histologic parameters to improve reliability in classification and grading of central cartilaginous tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 2009;33(1):50-7. [DOI:10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817eec2b] [PMID]
27. Chandler I, Houlston RS. Interobserver agreement in grading of colorectal cancers_findings from a nationwide Web_based survey of histopathologists. Histopathology 2008;52:494- 9. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.02976.x] [PMID]
28. Tosoni I, Wagner U, Sauter G, Egloff M, Knonagel H, Alund G, et al. Clinical significance of interobserver differences in the staging and grading of superficial bladder cancer. BJU Int 2000;85(1):48-53. [DOI:10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00356.x] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
