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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |