Histopathological grading of breast ductal carcinoma In Situ: validation of a web-based survey through intra-observer reproducibility analysis
Tóm tắt
Histopathological grading diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast may be very difficult even for experts, and it is important for therapeutic decisions. The challenge may be due to the inaccurate and/or subjective application of the diagnosis criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the intra-observer agreement between a traditional method and a developed web-based questionnaire for scoring breast DCIS. A cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the diagnostic agreement of an electronic questionnaire and its point scoring system with the subjective reading of digital images for 3 different DCIS grading systems: Holland, Van Nuys and modified Black nuclear grade system. Three pathologists analyzed the same set of digitized images from 43 DCIS cases using two different web-based programs. In the first phase, they accessed a website with a newly created questionnaire and scoring system developed to allow the determination of the histological grade of the cases. After at least 6 months, the pathologists read again the same images, but without the help of the questionnaire, indicating subjectively the diagnoses. The intra-observer agreement analysis was employed to validate this innovative web-based survey. Overall, diagnostic reproducibility was similar for all histologic grading classification systems, with kappa values of 0.57 ± 0.10, 0.67 ± 0.09 and 0.67 ± 0.09 for Holland, Van Nuys classification and modified Black nuclear grade system respectively. Only two 2-step diagnostic disagreements were found, one for Holland and another for Van Nuys. Both cases were superestimated by the web-based survey. The diagnostic agreement between the web-based questionnaire and a traditional method, both using digital images, is moderate to good for Holland, Van Nuys and modified Black nuclear grade system. The use of a scoring point system does not appear to pose a major risk of presenting large (2-step) diagnostic disagreements. These findings indicate that the use of this point scoring system in this web-based survey to grade objectively DCIS lesions is a useful diagnostic tool.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Burstein HJ, Polyak K, Wong JS, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1430–41.
Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK. Diseases of the breast. Lippincott Williams e Wilkins; 2004
Rosen PP, Oberman H. Tumors of the mammary gland. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1993
Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2003. p. 60–81.
Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber AS, et al. Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1569–83.
Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:1221–25.
Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, et al. Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer. 1989;63:618–24.
Ponzone R, Dominguez A, Marra V, et al. Pathological classification of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast correlates with surgical treatment and may be predicted by mammography. Breast. 2007;16:495–502.
Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, et al. A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 1996;77:2226–74.
Van de Vijner MJ. Biologic variables and prognosis of DCIS. Breast. 2005;14:509–19.
Badve S, A’Hern RP, Ward AM, et al. Prediction of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five histological classifications: a comparative study with long follow-up. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:915–23.
Douglas-Jones AG, Gupta SK, Attanoos RL, et al. A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): correlation with grade of associate invasive carcinoma. Histopathology. 1996;29:397–409.
Bethwaite P, Smith N, Delahunt B, et al. Reproducibility of a new classification schemes for pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:450–4.
Douglas-Jones AG, Morgan JM, Appleton MA, et al. Consistency in the observation of feature used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:596–602.
Salles MA, Mattos MA, Resende IM, et al. Análise interobservador no diagnóstico histopatológico do carcinoma ductal in situ da mama. Rev Brasil Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27:1–6.
Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16:1133–43.
Schuh F, Biazús JV, Resetkova E, et al. Reproducibility of three classification systems of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using a web-based survey. Pathol Res and Pract. 2010;206:705–11.
Scott MA, Lagios MD, Axelsson K, et al. Ductal Carcinoma in situ of the breast: reproducibility of histological subtype analysis. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:967–73.
Sloane JP, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorizing ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications. Hum Pathol. 1998;10:1056–62.
Sneige N, Lagios MD, Schwarting R, et al. Interobserver reproducubility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol. 1999;30:257–62.
Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, et al. Pathologists’ agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma in situ classification schemes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:651–9.
Pinder SE. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): pathological features, differential diagnosis, prognostic factors and specimen evaluation. Mod Pathol. 2010;23:8–13.
Halliday BE, Bhattacharyya AK, Graham AR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of an international static-imaging telepathology consultation service. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:17–21.
Kayser K. Telepathology in Europe. Its practical use. Arch Anat Cyto Pathol. 1995;43:196–9.
Weinberg DS, Allaert FA, Dusserre P, et al. Telepathology diagnosis by means of digital still images: an international validation study. Hum Pathol. 1996;27:111–8.
Weinstein LJ, Epstein JI, Edlow D, et al. Static image analysis of skin specimens: the application of telepathology to frozen section evaluation. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:22–9.
Weinstein RS, Bhattacharyya AK, Graham AR, et al. Telepathology: a ten year progress report. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:1–7.
Weinstein RS, Bloom KJ, Rozek LS. Telepathology: long-distance diagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol. 1989;91:39–42.
Weinstein RS, Graham AR, Lynne C, et al. Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:1057–69.
Piccolo D1, Soyer HP, Burgdorf W, et al. Concordance between telepathologic diagnosis and conventional histopathologic diagnosis: a multiobserver store-and-forward study on 20 skin specimens. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138(1):53–8.
Eusebi V, Foschini L, Erde S, et al. Transcontinental consults in surgical pathology via the internet. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:13–6.
Black MM, Barclay TH, Hankey BF, et al. Prognosis in breast cancer utilizing histologic characteristics of the primary tumor. Cancer. 1975;36:2048–55.
Black MM, Opler SR, Speer FD. Survival in breast cancer cases in relation to the structure of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes. Sur Gyn Obst. 1995;100:543–51.
Fisher ER, Redmond C, Fisher B. Histologic grading of breast cancer. Pathol Annu. 1980;15:239–51.
Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:167–70.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
Svanholm H, Staklint H, Gundersen HJG, et al. Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnosis with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS. 1989;97:689–98.
Mun SK, Esayed AM, Tohme WG, et al. Teleradiology/telepathology requirements and implementation. J Med Sys. 1995;19:153–64.