Cargando…

Variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa

OBJECTIVE: Assess interpretative variation in Nottingham grading using control charts (CCs) and in silico kappa (ISK). METHODS: In house invasive breast cancer cases (2011–2019) at two institutions with a synoptic report were extracted. Pathologist interpretative rates (PIRs) were calculated and nor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moodley, Jinesa, Williams, Phillip, Gohla, Gabriela, Major, Pierre, Bonert, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7769472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33370310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242656
_version_ 1783629333760311296
author Moodley, Jinesa
Williams, Phillip
Gohla, Gabriela
Major, Pierre
Bonert, Michael
author_facet Moodley, Jinesa
Williams, Phillip
Gohla, Gabriela
Major, Pierre
Bonert, Michael
author_sort Moodley, Jinesa
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Assess interpretative variation in Nottingham grading using control charts (CCs) and in silico kappa (ISK). METHODS: In house invasive breast cancer cases (2011–2019) at two institutions with a synoptic report were extracted. Pathologist interpretative rates (PIRs) were calculated and normed for Nottingham grade (G) and its components (tubular score (TS), nuclear score (NS), mitotic score (MS)) for pathologists interpreting >35 cases. ISKs were calculated using the ordered mutually exclusive category assumption (OMECA) and maximal categorical overlap assumption (MCOA). RESULTS: The study period included 1,994 resections. Ten pathologists each assessed 38–441 cases and together saw 1,636; these were further analyzed. The PIR medians (normed ranges) were: G1:24%(18–27%), G2:53%(43–56%) and G3:26%(19–33%). The MCOA ISK and the number of statistical outliers (p< 0.05/p< 0.001) to the group median interpretive rate (GMIR) for the ten pathologists was G1: 0.82(2/0 of 10), G2: 0.76(1/1), G3: 0.71(3/1), TS1: 0.79(1/0), TS2: 0.63(5/1), TS3: 0.66(5/1), NS1: 0.37(5/4), NS2: 0.60(4/3), NS3: 0.59(4/4), MS1: 0.78(3/1), MS2: 0.78(3/1), MS3: 0.77(2/0). The OMECA ISK was 0.62, 0.49, 0.69 and 0.71 for TS, NS, MS and G. CONCLUSIONS: The nuclear score has the most outliers. NS1 appears to be inconsistently used. ISK mirrors trends in conventional kappa studies. CCs and ISK allow insight into interpretive variation and may be essential for the next generation in quality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7769472
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77694722021-01-08 Variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa Moodley, Jinesa Williams, Phillip Gohla, Gabriela Major, Pierre Bonert, Michael PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Assess interpretative variation in Nottingham grading using control charts (CCs) and in silico kappa (ISK). METHODS: In house invasive breast cancer cases (2011–2019) at two institutions with a synoptic report were extracted. Pathologist interpretative rates (PIRs) were calculated and normed for Nottingham grade (G) and its components (tubular score (TS), nuclear score (NS), mitotic score (MS)) for pathologists interpreting >35 cases. ISKs were calculated using the ordered mutually exclusive category assumption (OMECA) and maximal categorical overlap assumption (MCOA). RESULTS: The study period included 1,994 resections. Ten pathologists each assessed 38–441 cases and together saw 1,636; these were further analyzed. The PIR medians (normed ranges) were: G1:24%(18–27%), G2:53%(43–56%) and G3:26%(19–33%). The MCOA ISK and the number of statistical outliers (p< 0.05/p< 0.001) to the group median interpretive rate (GMIR) for the ten pathologists was G1: 0.82(2/0 of 10), G2: 0.76(1/1), G3: 0.71(3/1), TS1: 0.79(1/0), TS2: 0.63(5/1), TS3: 0.66(5/1), NS1: 0.37(5/4), NS2: 0.60(4/3), NS3: 0.59(4/4), MS1: 0.78(3/1), MS2: 0.78(3/1), MS3: 0.77(2/0). The OMECA ISK was 0.62, 0.49, 0.69 and 0.71 for TS, NS, MS and G. CONCLUSIONS: The nuclear score has the most outliers. NS1 appears to be inconsistently used. ISK mirrors trends in conventional kappa studies. CCs and ISK allow insight into interpretive variation and may be essential for the next generation in quality. Public Library of Science 2020-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7769472/ /pubmed/33370310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242656 Text en © 2020 Moodley et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Moodley, Jinesa
Williams, Phillip
Gohla, Gabriela
Major, Pierre
Bonert, Michael
Variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa
title Variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa
title_full Variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa
title_fullStr Variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa
title_full_unstemmed Variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa
title_short Variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa
title_sort variation in breast cancer grading in 1,636 resections assessed using control charts and in silico kappa
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7769472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33370310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242656
work_keys_str_mv AT moodleyjinesa variationinbreastcancergradingin1636resectionsassessedusingcontrolchartsandinsilicokappa
AT williamsphillip variationinbreastcancergradingin1636resectionsassessedusingcontrolchartsandinsilicokappa
AT gohlagabriela variationinbreastcancergradingin1636resectionsassessedusingcontrolchartsandinsilicokappa
AT majorpierre variationinbreastcancergradingin1636resectionsassessedusingcontrolchartsandinsilicokappa
AT bonertmichael variationinbreastcancergradingin1636resectionsassessedusingcontrolchartsandinsilicokappa