Interobserver variability in the classification of childhood maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Torrelo ◽  
Laura Vergara‐de‐la‐Campa ◽  
José Manuel Azaña ◽  
Shoshana Greenberger ◽  
Joseph M. Lam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Cutaneous Mastocytosis

scholarly journals Place of cytology in the diagnosis of systemic mastocytosis: A case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 01-05
Author(s):  
W. Quiddi ◽  
H. Boumaazi ◽  
S. Ed-dyb ◽  
H. Yahyaoui ◽  
M. Aitameur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mast Cells ◽  
Hematological Malignancies ◽  
Systemic Mastocytosis ◽  
Bone Marrow Involvement ◽  
Acute Leukemias ◽  
Activating Mutations ◽  
Myeloid Neoplasms ◽  
Organ Systems ◽  
Cutaneous Mastocytosis

Mastocytosis is a heterogeneous group of rare diseases related to the clonal, neoplastic proliferation of morphologically and immunophenotypically abnormal mast cells, that accumulate in one or more organ systems. Their pathophysiology is dominated by activating mutations in C-Kit (Stem Cell Factor receptor). Several pathological forms have been described ranging from isolated cutaneous mastocytosis affecting mainly children, to aggressive systemic mastocytosis described mainly in adults with bone marrow involvement. According to the WHO 2016 classification of hematological malignancies, systemic mastocytosis appear as a new entity of "myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias" that combines cytology (abnormal mast cells) with other genetic and molecular criteria. We describe through this observation the practical side of hematological cytology in the diagnostic orientation of this serious, rare and underestimated pathology.

scholarly journals Interobserver variability in the classification of appendicitis during laparoscopy

2018 ◽  
Vol 105 (8) ◽  
pp. 1014-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. L. van den Boom ◽  
E. M. L. de Wijkerslooth ◽  
K. A. L. Mauff ◽  
I. Dawson ◽  
C. C. van Rossem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Variability

Langenskiöld Classification of Tibia Vara: An Assessment of Interobserver Variability

1994 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Stricker ◽  
Paul M. Edwards ◽  
Michael A. Tidwell
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Tibia Vara

Interobserver Variability in the ILAE Classification of Seizures in Childhood

Epilepsia ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
John B. Bodensteiner ◽  
Ronnie D. Brownsworth ◽  
Joseph R. Knapik ◽  
Merrill C. Kanter ◽  
Linda D. Cowan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Ilae Classification

scholarly journals Computer-aided Classification of Breast Masses: Performance and Interobserver Variability of Expert Radiologists versus Residents

Radiology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 258 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swatee Singh ◽  
Jeff Maxwell ◽  
Jay A. Baker ◽  
Jennifer L. Nicholas ◽  
Joseph Y. Lo
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Breast Masses ◽  
Computer Aided

Interobserver variability in assessing dysplasia and architecture in colorectal adenomas: a multicentre Canadian study

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (9) ◽  
pp. 781-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Osmond ◽  
Hector Li-Chang ◽  
Richard Kirsch ◽  
Dimitrios Divaris ◽  
Vincent Falck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Analysis ◽  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Colorectal Adenomas ◽  
Canadian Study ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
A Priori Power Analysis ◽  
Whole Slide Images

AimsFollowing the introduction of colorectal cancer screening programmes throughout Canada, it became necessary to standardise the diagnosis of colorectal adenomas. Canadian guidelines for standardised reporting of adenomas were developed in 2011. The aims of the present study were (a) to assess interobserver variability in the classification of dysplasia and architecture in adenomas and (b) to determine if interobserver variability could be improved by the adoption of criteria specified in the national guidelines.MethodsAn a priori power analysis was used to determine an adequate number of cases and participants. Twelve pathologists independently classified 40 whole-slide images of adenomas according to architecture and dysplasia grade. Following a wash-out period, participants were provided with the national guidelines and asked to reclassify the study set.ResultsAt baseline, there was moderate interobserver agreement for architecture (K=0.4700; 95% CI 0.4427 to 0.4972) and dysplasia grade (K=0.5680; 95% CI 0.5299 to 0.6062). Following distribution of the guidelines, there was improved interobserver agreement in assessing architecture (K=0.5403; 95% CI 0.5133 to 0.5674)). For dysplasia grade, overall interobserver agreement remained moderate but decreased significantly (K=0.4833; 95% CI 0.4452 to 0.5215). Half of the cases contained high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Two pathologists diagnosed HGD in ≥75% of cases.ConclusionsThe improvement in interobserver agreement in classifying adenoma architecture suggests that national guidelines can be useful in disseminating knowledge, however, the variability in the diagnosis of HGD, even following guideline review suggests the need for ongoing knowledge-transfer exercises.

scholarly journals A Clinical and Histopathologic Focus on Barrett Esophagus and Barrett-Related Dysplasia

2011 ◽  
Vol 135 (10) ◽  
pp. 1249-1260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lysandra Voltaggio ◽  
Elizabeth A Montgomery ◽  
Dora Lam-Himlin
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Endoscopic Therapy ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Barrett Esophagus ◽  
National Library ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Therapeutic Modalities ◽  
Histologic Evaluation ◽  
Subsequent Patient

Context.—Barrett esophagus is a metaplastic, premalignant lesion associated with approximately 0.5% annual incidence of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Diagnosis and screening of Barrett esophagus and Barrett-related dysplasia relies on histologic evaluation of endoscopic mucosal biopsies, a process that is burdened with interobserver variability. Objectives.—To review the histologic features and classification of Barrett esophagus and Barrett-related dysplasia, to discuss the underlying difficulties in diagnosis and pitfalls, and to provide a brief review of new developments related to therapeutic modalities for patients diagnosed with dysplasia. Data Sources.—Sources include a review of relevant literature indexed in PubMed (US National Library of Medicine). Conclusions.—In spite of interobserver variability, histologic assessment of dysplasia is currently the accepted method of surveillance, and subsequent patient management is dictated by this evaluation. Although not universal, endoscopic therapy is increasingly important in replacing esophagectomy for patients with high-grade dysplasia or early carcinoma.

Atypical Glandular Cells: Interobserver Variability according to Clinical Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 397-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Lepe ◽  
Claire M. Eklund ◽  
M. Ruhul Quddus ◽  
Cherie Paquette
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Management ◽  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Diagnostic Uncertainty ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Atypical Cells ◽  
Glandular Cells ◽  
Atypical Glandular Cells ◽  
Bethesda System

Objective: The 2014 Bethesda System diagnostic criteria for atypical glandular cells (AGC) aids in classification of atypical cells in cervical cytology. There is limited literature regarding reproducibility and interobserver variability in the application of the 2014 AGC criteria. Our aim is to assess the interobserver variability of AGC with a focus on how diagnostic categories link with guideline-driven management. Study Design: Three observers re-reviewed 51 previously diagnosed AGC Papanicolaou tests. The diagnoses were categorized as follows: (1) according to guideline-specified management, and (2) as glandular vs. squamous lesions. The κ statistic was used to evaluate interobserver agreement. Results: The interobserver variability per guideline management by weighted 2-observer κ ranged from 0.009 to 0.530, with half of the interobserver pairings meeting the threshold for at least fair-moderate agreement. For categorization as glandular, squamous, or both, unweighted κ yielded at best fair interobserver agreement (κ = 0.250) in 1 pairing, with low κ scores in the remainder of reviewer pairs (range 0.015–0.152). Conclusions: There is significant interobserver variability in the diagnosis of AGC. The AGC cases when divided by clinical management had fair-moderate interobserver agreement, suggesting that diagnostic variability likely has a real effect on patient care. This diagnostic uncertainty should be understood by cytologists and clinicians.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document