Pathologists' Agreement With Experts and Reproducibility of Breast Ductal Carcinoma-in-Situ Classification Schemes
- 1 May 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
- Vol. 24 (5) , 651-659
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200005000-00003
Abstract
Several histologic classifications for breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have been proposed. This study assessed the diagnostic agreement and reproducibility of three DCIS classifications (Holland [HL], modified Lagios [LA], and Van Nuys [VN]) by comparing the interpretations of pathologists without expertise in breast pathology with those of three breast pathology experts, each a proponent of one classification. Seven nonexpert pathologists in New Hampshire and three experts evaluated 40 slides of DCIS according to the three classifications. Twenty slides were reinterpreted by each nonexpert pathologist. Diagnostic accuracy (nonexperts compared with experts) and reproducibility were evaluated using inter-and intrarater techniques (kappa statistic). Final DCIS grade and nuclear grade were reported most accurately among nonexpert pathologists using HL (kappa = 0.53 and 0.49, respectively) compared with LA and VN (kappa = 0.29 and 0.35, respectively, for both classifications). An intermediate DCIS grade was assessed most accurately using HL and LA, and a high grade (group 3) was assessed most accurately using VN. Diagnostic reproducibility was highest using HL (kappa = 0.49). The VN interpretation of necrosis (present or absent) was reported more accurately than the LA criteria (extensive, focal, or absent; kappa = 0.59 and 0.45, respectively), but reproducibility of each was comparable (kappa = 0.48 and 0.46, respectively). Intrarater agreement was high overall. Comparing all three classifications, final DCIS grade was reported best using HL. Nuclear grade (cytodifferentiation) using HL and the presence or absence of necrosis were the criteria diagnosed most accurately and reproducibly. Establishing one internationally approved set of interpretive definitions, with acceptable accuracy and reproducibility among both pathologists with and without expertise in breast pathology interpretation, will assist researchers in evaluating treatment effectiveness and characterizing the natural history of DCIS breast lesions.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prediction of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five histological classifications: A comparative study with long follow-upHuman Pathology, 1998
- Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.Journal of Clinical Pathology, 1998
- Can We Improve Breast Pathology Reporting Practices? A Community-Based Breast Pathology Quality Improvement Program in New HampshireJournal of Community Health, 1998
- Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in SituCancer, 1997
- A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): correlation with grade of associated invasive carcinomaHistopathology, 1996
- The New Hampshire Mammography Network: the development and design of a population-based registry.American Journal of Roentgenology, 1996
- Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breastPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1996
- Noninvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: The relevance of histologic categorizationHuman Pathology, 1993
- Estrogen receptor immunohistoohemistry in carcinoma in situ of the breastCancer, 1992
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986