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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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