Cargando…
Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides
BACKGROUND: To assess reproducibility and accuracy of overall Nottingham grade and component scores using digital whole slide images (WSIs) compared to glass slides. METHODS: Two hundred and eight pathologists were randomized to independently interpret 1 of 4 breast biopsy sets using either glass sl...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6489380/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31057980 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_29_18 |
_version_ | 1783414814996955136 |
---|---|
author | Davidson, Tara M. Rendi, Mara H. Frederick, Paul D. Onega, Tracy Allison, Kimberly H. Mercan, Ezgi Brunyé, Tad T. Shapiro, Linda G. Weaver, Donald L. Elmore, Joann G. |
author_facet | Davidson, Tara M. Rendi, Mara H. Frederick, Paul D. Onega, Tracy Allison, Kimberly H. Mercan, Ezgi Brunyé, Tad T. Shapiro, Linda G. Weaver, Donald L. Elmore, Joann G. |
author_sort | Davidson, Tara M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To assess reproducibility and accuracy of overall Nottingham grade and component scores using digital whole slide images (WSIs) compared to glass slides. METHODS: Two hundred and eight pathologists were randomized to independently interpret 1 of 4 breast biopsy sets using either glass slides or digital WSI. Each set included 5 or 6 invasive carcinomas (22 total invasive cases). Participants interpreted the same biopsy set approximately 9 months later following a second randomization to WSI or glass slides. Nottingham grade, including component scores, was assessed on each interpretation, providing 2045 independent interpretations of grade. Overall grade and component scores were compared between pathologists (interobserver agreement) and for interpretations by the same pathologist (intraobserver agreement). Grade assessments were compared when the format (WSI vs. glass slides) changed or was the same for the two interpretations. RESULTS: Nottingham grade intraobserver agreement was highest using glass slides for both interpretations (73%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 68%, 78%) and slightly lower but not statistically different using digital WSI for both interpretations (68%, 95% CI: 61%, 75%; P= 0.22). The agreement was lowest when the format changed between interpretations (63%, 95% CI: 59%, 68%). Interobserver agreement was significantly higher (P < 0.001) using glass slides versus digital WSI (68%, 95% CI: 66%, 70% versus 60%, 95% CI: 57%, 62%, respectively). Nuclear pleomorphism scores had the lowest inter- and intra-observer agreement. Mitotic scores were higher on glass slides in inter- and intra-observer comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists’ intraobserver agreement (reproducibility) is similar for Nottingham grade using glass slides or WSI. However, slightly lower agreement between pathologists suggests that verification of grade using digital WSI may be more challenging. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6489380 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64893802019-05-03 Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides Davidson, Tara M. Rendi, Mara H. Frederick, Paul D. Onega, Tracy Allison, Kimberly H. Mercan, Ezgi Brunyé, Tad T. Shapiro, Linda G. Weaver, Donald L. Elmore, Joann G. J Pathol Inform Research Article BACKGROUND: To assess reproducibility and accuracy of overall Nottingham grade and component scores using digital whole slide images (WSIs) compared to glass slides. METHODS: Two hundred and eight pathologists were randomized to independently interpret 1 of 4 breast biopsy sets using either glass slides or digital WSI. Each set included 5 or 6 invasive carcinomas (22 total invasive cases). Participants interpreted the same biopsy set approximately 9 months later following a second randomization to WSI or glass slides. Nottingham grade, including component scores, was assessed on each interpretation, providing 2045 independent interpretations of grade. Overall grade and component scores were compared between pathologists (interobserver agreement) and for interpretations by the same pathologist (intraobserver agreement). Grade assessments were compared when the format (WSI vs. glass slides) changed or was the same for the two interpretations. RESULTS: Nottingham grade intraobserver agreement was highest using glass slides for both interpretations (73%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 68%, 78%) and slightly lower but not statistically different using digital WSI for both interpretations (68%, 95% CI: 61%, 75%; P= 0.22). The agreement was lowest when the format changed between interpretations (63%, 95% CI: 59%, 68%). Interobserver agreement was significantly higher (P < 0.001) using glass slides versus digital WSI (68%, 95% CI: 66%, 70% versus 60%, 95% CI: 57%, 62%, respectively). Nuclear pleomorphism scores had the lowest inter- and intra-observer agreement. Mitotic scores were higher on glass slides in inter- and intra-observer comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists’ intraobserver agreement (reproducibility) is similar for Nottingham grade using glass slides or WSI. However, slightly lower agreement between pathologists suggests that verification of grade using digital WSI may be more challenging. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6489380/ /pubmed/31057980 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_29_18 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Journal of Pathology Informatics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Davidson, Tara M. Rendi, Mara H. Frederick, Paul D. Onega, Tracy Allison, Kimberly H. Mercan, Ezgi Brunyé, Tad T. Shapiro, Linda G. Weaver, Donald L. Elmore, Joann G. Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides |
title | Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides |
title_full | Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides |
title_fullStr | Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides |
title_full_unstemmed | Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides |
title_short | Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides |
title_sort | breast cancer prognostic factors in the digital era: comparison of nottingham grade using whole slide images and glass slides |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6489380/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31057980 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpi.jpi_29_18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT davidsontaram breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT rendimarah breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT frederickpauld breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT onegatracy breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT allisonkimberlyh breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT mercanezgi breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT brunyetadt breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT shapirolindag breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT weaverdonaldl breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides AT elmorejoanng breastcancerprognosticfactorsinthedigitaleracomparisonofnottinghamgradeusingwholeslideimagesandglassslides |