Original contributionInterobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ☆,☆☆
References (23)
Duct carcinoma in situ: Pathology and treatment
Surg Clin North Am
(1990)- et al.
Noninvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: The relevance of histologic categorization
Hum Pathol
(1993) - et al.
Ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy and irradiation: Histopathological analysis of 49 specimens with emphasis on risk factors and long term results
Hum Pathol
(1995) - et al.
Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Reproducibility of histologic subtype analysis
Hum Pathol
(1997) - et al.
Histological grading of breast cancer: Interobserver, reproducibility and prognostic significance
Pathol Res Pract
(1990) - et al.
Histological grading in breast cancer: Interobserver agreement, and relation to other prognostic factors including ploidy
Pathology
(1992) - et al.
Histological grading of breast carcinomas: A study of interobserver agreement
Hum Pathol
(1995) - et al.
Subclinical ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Treatment by local excision and surveillance alone
Cancer
(1992) - et al.
Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
J Clin Oncol
(1996) - et al.
Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) protocol B-17: Intraductal carcinoma (ductal carcinoma in situ)
Cancer
(1995)
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with excision alone: Predictors of local recurrence
Mod Pathol
Cited by (50)
Deep learning-based grading of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast histopathology images
2021, Laboratory InvestigationEvaluating agreement, histological features, and relevance of separating pleomorphic and florid lobular carcinoma in situ subtypes
2018, Human PathologyCitation Excerpt :All observers in our study are breast specialty trained which may explain overall better agreement. The interobserver agreement (κ value) for PLCIS, noted in our study, is similar to κ values reported for nuclear grading in ductal carcinoma in situ [22]. In our cohort comedo-type necrosis and apoptosis were present in a significantly higher number of slides with consensus for FLCIS.
The diagnostic challenge of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ
2017, European Journal of CancerCitation Excerpt :We will have to wait for outcomes from those clinical trials. While many studies have examined the classification of DCIS by grade-based on a variety of characteristics [5,10,25,25,31–34], this study is the largest and the first to use a sample of pathologists from 8 US states to characterise interpretative agreement for low- and high-grade DCIS. This allowed for a more focussed evaluation demonstrating the specific end of the spectrum of DCIS that suffers from low-diagnostic reproducibility.
Reproducibility of three classification systems of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using a web-based survey
2010, Pathology Research and PracticePractice Guideline for the Management of Ductal Carcinoma In-Situ of the Breast (DCIS)
2007, Journal of the American College of SurgeonsCitation Excerpt :The report also should include the architectural patterns present, since this may have clinical relevance (e.g., the micropapillary pattern may be more prone to multiple quadrant involvement, independent of nuclear grade) [53,54]. A few recent studies have addressed the issue of consistency among pathologists in categorizing DCIS using the newer classification systems [51,56-59]. In general, greatest consistency is achieved using classification systems based primarily on nuclear grade.
- ☆
Supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute #NOI-CN-65004.
- ☆☆
Presented in part at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Boston, MA, March 1998.