| Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 22301705 Owner: NLM Status: Publisher |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) applies specific diagnostic criteria to designate a monoclonal endometrial preinvasive glandular proliferation known from previous studies to confer a 45-fold increased risk for endometrial cancer. In this international study we estimate accuracy and precision of EIN diagnosis among 20 reviewing pathologists in different practice environments, and with differing levels of experience and training. Sixty-two endometrial biopsies diagnosed as benign, EIN, or adenocarcinoma by consensus of two expert subspecialty pathologists were used as a reference comparison to assess diagnostic accuracy of 20 reviewing pathologists. Interobserver reproducibility among the 20 reviewers provided a measure of diagnostic precision. Before evaluating cases, observers were self-trained by reviewing published textbook and/or online EIN diagnostic guidelines. Demographics of the reviewing pathologists, and their impressions regarding implementation of EIN terminology were recorded. Seventy-nine percent of the 20 reviewing pathologists' diagnoses were exactly concordant with the expert consensus (accuracy). The interobserver weighted κ values of 3-class EIN scheme (benign, EIN, carcinoma) diagnoses between expert consensus and each of reviewing pathologists averaged 0.72 (reproducibility, or precision). Reviewing pathologists demonstrated one of three diagnostic styles, which varied in the repertoire of diagnoses commonly used, and their nonrandom response to potentially confounding diagnostic features such as endometrial polyp, altered differentiation, background hormonal effects, and technically poor preparations. EIN diagnostic strategies can be learned and implemented from standard teaching materials with a high degree of reproducibility, but is impacted by the personal diagnostic style of each pathologist in responding to potential diagnostic confounders.Modern Pathology advance online publication, 3 February 2012; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2011.220. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Alp Usubutun; George L Mutter; Arzu Saglam; Anil Dolgun; Eylem Akar Ozkan; Tan Ince; Aytekin Akyol; H Dilek Bulbul; Zerrin Calay; Funda Eren; Derya Gumurdulu; A Nihan Haberal; Sennur Ilvan; Seyda Karaveli; Meral Koyuncuoglu; Bahar Muezzinoglu; Kamil H Muftuoglu; Necmettin Ozdemir; Ozlem Ozen; Sema Baykara; Elif Pestereli; Emine Cagnur Ulukus; Osman Zekioglu |
Related Documents
:
|
22533945 - Systematic review of animal models for the study of implant integration, assessing the ... 22570125 - Galactocele in male infants: report of two cases and review of the literature. 1946025 - An office mental status examination for complex chronic dissociative symptoms and multi... 8623035 - The extreme regressive reaction of a psychopath. 848275 - Studies on epidemiological, clinical, and etiological aspects of als disease in sardini... 21622635 - Barefoot running claims and controversies: a review of the literature. |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE Date: 2012-2-03 |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc Volume: - ISSN: 1530-0285 ISO Abbreviation: - Publication Date: 2012 Feb |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2012-2-3 Completed Date: - Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 8806605 Medline TA: Mod Pathol Country: - |
Other Details:
|
Languages: ENG Pagination: - Citation Subset: - |
Affiliation:
|
Department of Pathology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Semi-quantitative immunohistochemical assay versus oncotype DX(®) qRT-PCR assay for estrogen and pr...
Next Document: Inclusion and Exclusion in Nutrigenetics Clinical Research: Ethical and Scientific Challenges.