2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2019.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interobserver variability in breast carcinoma grading results in prognostic stage differences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Cancers are traditionally diagnosed by histopathology or cytopathology to confirm the presence of tumour cells within a patient sample, assess markers relevant to cancer and to characterise features such as tumour type, stage and grade. This microscopy-based assessment is crucial; however, the process is relatively labour-intensive and somewhat subjective [ 80 , 81 ]. A histology image viewed at high magnification (typically 20x or 40x) can reveal millions of subtle cellular features, and deep CNN models are exceptionally good at extracting features from high-resolution image data [ 82 ].…”
Section: Deep Learning In Oncologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cancers are traditionally diagnosed by histopathology or cytopathology to confirm the presence of tumour cells within a patient sample, assess markers relevant to cancer and to characterise features such as tumour type, stage and grade. This microscopy-based assessment is crucial; however, the process is relatively labour-intensive and somewhat subjective [ 80 , 81 ]. A histology image viewed at high magnification (typically 20x or 40x) can reveal millions of subtle cellular features, and deep CNN models are exceptionally good at extracting features from high-resolution image data [ 82 ].…”
Section: Deep Learning In Oncologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tumor grading has been a traditional component of pathologic evaluation and offers guidance to therapy and patient management in many organ systems. [1][2][3][4][5] However, there is no consensus on a grading system for invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The 2015 WHO classification of pulmonary adenocarcinoma, 6 based on the predominant histologic pattern, has consistently been found to correlate with prognosis and separates adenocarcinoma into the three following prognostic groups: low grade (lepidic predominant); intermediate grade (acinar or papillary predominant); and high grade (solid or micropapillary predominant).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Secondly, inter-and intra-observer variation has been extensively reported, with a wide range Kappa values (0.43 and 0.85) which correlates to a range from "fair" to "almost perfect" agreement [9,12,25,30,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] (Table 3). A recent nationwide study in the Netherlands showed substantial variation in grading in daily clinical practice, both between pathology laboratories and between pathologists within individual laboratories [55].…”
Section: Histologic Grading: Reproducibility Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%