Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes

Wendy A. Wells, Patricia (Patty) Carney, M. Scottie Eliassen, Margaret R. Grove, Anna N A Tosteson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Several histologic classifications for breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have been proposed. This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and reproducibility of three DCIS classifications (Holland [HL], modified Lagios [LA], and Van Nuys [VN]) by comparing the interpretations of pathologists without expertise in breast pathology with those of three breast pathology experts, each a proponent of one classification. Seven nonexpert pathologists in New Hampshire and three experts evaluated 40 slides of DCIS according to the three classifications. Twenty slides were reinterpreted by each nonexpert pathologist. Diagnostic accuracy (nonexperts compared with experts) and reproducibility were evaluated using inter- and intrarater techniques (kappa statistic). Final DCIS grade and nuclear grade were reported most accurately among nonexpert pathologists using HL (kappa = 0.53 and 0.49, respectively) compared with LA and VN (kappa = 0.29 and 0.35, respectively, for both classifications). An intermediate DCIS grade was assessed most accurately using HL and LA, and a high grade (group 3) was assessed most accurately using VN. Diagnostic reproducibility was highest using HL (kappa = 0.49). The VN interpretation of necrosis (present or absent) was reported more accurately than the LA criteria (extensive, focal, or absent; kappa = 0.59 and 0.45, respectively), but reproducibility of each was comparable (kappa = 0.48 and 0.46, respectively). Intrarater agreement was high overall. Comparing all three classifications, final DCIS grade was reported best using HL. Nuclear grade (cytodifferentiation) using HL and the presence or absence of necrosis were the criteria diagnosed most accurately and reproducibly. Establishing one internationally approved set of interpretive definitions, with acceptable accuracy and reproducibility among both pathologists with and without expertise in breast pathology interpretation, will assist researchers in evaluating treatment effectiveness and characterizing the natural history of DCIS breast lesions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)651-659
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology
Volume24
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Netherlands
Breast
Pathology
Necrosis
Pathologists
Breast Carcinoma In Situ
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Breast
  • Diagnostic accuracy
  • Diagnostic reproducibility
  • Ductal carcinoma in situ

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. / Wells, Wendy A.; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Eliassen, M. Scottie; Grove, Margaret R.; Tosteson, Anna N A.

In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 24, No. 5, 05.2000, p. 651-659.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wells, Wendy A. ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Eliassen, M. Scottie ; Grove, Margaret R. ; Tosteson, Anna N A. / Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2000 ; Vol. 24, No. 5. pp. 651-659.
@article{7dc33e90ab764ce58af41b2146cd9801,
title = "Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes",
abstract = "Several histologic classifications for breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have been proposed. This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and reproducibility of three DCIS classifications (Holland [HL], modified Lagios [LA], and Van Nuys [VN]) by comparing the interpretations of pathologists without expertise in breast pathology with those of three breast pathology experts, each a proponent of one classification. Seven nonexpert pathologists in New Hampshire and three experts evaluated 40 slides of DCIS according to the three classifications. Twenty slides were reinterpreted by each nonexpert pathologist. Diagnostic accuracy (nonexperts compared with experts) and reproducibility were evaluated using inter- and intrarater techniques (kappa statistic). Final DCIS grade and nuclear grade were reported most accurately among nonexpert pathologists using HL (kappa = 0.53 and 0.49, respectively) compared with LA and VN (kappa = 0.29 and 0.35, respectively, for both classifications). An intermediate DCIS grade was assessed most accurately using HL and LA, and a high grade (group 3) was assessed most accurately using VN. Diagnostic reproducibility was highest using HL (kappa = 0.49). The VN interpretation of necrosis (present or absent) was reported more accurately than the LA criteria (extensive, focal, or absent; kappa = 0.59 and 0.45, respectively), but reproducibility of each was comparable (kappa = 0.48 and 0.46, respectively). Intrarater agreement was high overall. Comparing all three classifications, final DCIS grade was reported best using HL. Nuclear grade (cytodifferentiation) using HL and the presence or absence of necrosis were the criteria diagnosed most accurately and reproducibly. Establishing one internationally approved set of interpretive definitions, with acceptable accuracy and reproducibility among both pathologists with and without expertise in breast pathology interpretation, will assist researchers in evaluating treatment effectiveness and characterizing the natural history of DCIS breast lesions.",
keywords = "Breast, Diagnostic accuracy, Diagnostic reproducibility, Ductal carcinoma in situ",
author = "Wells, {Wendy A.} and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Eliassen, {M. Scottie} and Grove, {Margaret R.} and Tosteson, {Anna N A}",
year = "2000",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1097/00000478-200005000-00003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "651--659",
journal = "American Journal of Surgical Pathology",
issn = "0147-5185",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes

AU - Wells, Wendy A.

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Eliassen, M. Scottie

AU - Grove, Margaret R.

AU - Tosteson, Anna N A

PY - 2000/5

Y1 - 2000/5

N2 - Several histologic classifications for breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have been proposed. This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and reproducibility of three DCIS classifications (Holland [HL], modified Lagios [LA], and Van Nuys [VN]) by comparing the interpretations of pathologists without expertise in breast pathology with those of three breast pathology experts, each a proponent of one classification. Seven nonexpert pathologists in New Hampshire and three experts evaluated 40 slides of DCIS according to the three classifications. Twenty slides were reinterpreted by each nonexpert pathologist. Diagnostic accuracy (nonexperts compared with experts) and reproducibility were evaluated using inter- and intrarater techniques (kappa statistic). Final DCIS grade and nuclear grade were reported most accurately among nonexpert pathologists using HL (kappa = 0.53 and 0.49, respectively) compared with LA and VN (kappa = 0.29 and 0.35, respectively, for both classifications). An intermediate DCIS grade was assessed most accurately using HL and LA, and a high grade (group 3) was assessed most accurately using VN. Diagnostic reproducibility was highest using HL (kappa = 0.49). The VN interpretation of necrosis (present or absent) was reported more accurately than the LA criteria (extensive, focal, or absent; kappa = 0.59 and 0.45, respectively), but reproducibility of each was comparable (kappa = 0.48 and 0.46, respectively). Intrarater agreement was high overall. Comparing all three classifications, final DCIS grade was reported best using HL. Nuclear grade (cytodifferentiation) using HL and the presence or absence of necrosis were the criteria diagnosed most accurately and reproducibly. Establishing one internationally approved set of interpretive definitions, with acceptable accuracy and reproducibility among both pathologists with and without expertise in breast pathology interpretation, will assist researchers in evaluating treatment effectiveness and characterizing the natural history of DCIS breast lesions.

AB - Several histologic classifications for breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have been proposed. This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and reproducibility of three DCIS classifications (Holland [HL], modified Lagios [LA], and Van Nuys [VN]) by comparing the interpretations of pathologists without expertise in breast pathology with those of three breast pathology experts, each a proponent of one classification. Seven nonexpert pathologists in New Hampshire and three experts evaluated 40 slides of DCIS according to the three classifications. Twenty slides were reinterpreted by each nonexpert pathologist. Diagnostic accuracy (nonexperts compared with experts) and reproducibility were evaluated using inter- and intrarater techniques (kappa statistic). Final DCIS grade and nuclear grade were reported most accurately among nonexpert pathologists using HL (kappa = 0.53 and 0.49, respectively) compared with LA and VN (kappa = 0.29 and 0.35, respectively, for both classifications). An intermediate DCIS grade was assessed most accurately using HL and LA, and a high grade (group 3) was assessed most accurately using VN. Diagnostic reproducibility was highest using HL (kappa = 0.49). The VN interpretation of necrosis (present or absent) was reported more accurately than the LA criteria (extensive, focal, or absent; kappa = 0.59 and 0.45, respectively), but reproducibility of each was comparable (kappa = 0.48 and 0.46, respectively). Intrarater agreement was high overall. Comparing all three classifications, final DCIS grade was reported best using HL. Nuclear grade (cytodifferentiation) using HL and the presence or absence of necrosis were the criteria diagnosed most accurately and reproducibly. Establishing one internationally approved set of interpretive definitions, with acceptable accuracy and reproducibility among both pathologists with and without expertise in breast pathology interpretation, will assist researchers in evaluating treatment effectiveness and characterizing the natural history of DCIS breast lesions.

KW - Breast

KW - Diagnostic accuracy

KW - Diagnostic reproducibility

KW - Ductal carcinoma in situ

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034015169&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034015169&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00000478-200005000-00003

DO - 10.1097/00000478-200005000-00003

M3 - Article

C2 - 10800983

AN - SCOPUS:0034015169

VL - 24

SP - 651

EP - 659

JO - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

SN - 0147-5185

IS - 5

ER -