Title | Validation of an algorithm for the diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma. |
Publication Type | Journal Article |
Year of Publication | 2012 |
Authors | Vang R, Visvanathan K, Gross A, Maambo E, Gupta M, Kuhn E, Li RFanghong, Ronnett BM, Seidman JD, Yemelyanova A, Shih I-M, Shaw PA, Soslow RA, Kurman RJ |
Journal | Int J Gynecol Pathol |
Volume | 31 |
Issue | 3 |
Pagination | 243-53 |
Date Published | 2012 May |
ISSN | 1538-7151 |
Keywords | Algorithms, Carcinoma in Situ, Fallopian Tube Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Ki-67 Antigen, Observer Variation, Reproducibility of Results, Tumor Suppressor Protein p53 |
Abstract | It has been reported that the diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) is not optimally reproducible on the basis of only histologic assessment. Recently, we reported that the use of a diagnostic algorithm that combines histologic features and coordinate immunohistochemical expression of p53 and Ki-67 substantially improves reproducibility of the diagnosis. The goal of the current study was to validate this algorithm by testing a group of 6 gynecologic pathologists who had not participated in the development of the algorithm (3 faculty and 3 fellows) but who were trained in its use by referring to a website designed for the purpose. They then reviewed a set of microscopic slides, which contained 41 mucosal lesions of the fallopian tube. Overall consensus (≥4 of 6 pathologists) for the 4 categories of STIC, serous tubal intraepithelial lesion (our atypical intermediate category), p53 signature, and normal/reactive was achieved in 76% of the lesions, with no consensus in 24%. Combining diagnoses into 2 categories (STIC versus non-STIC) resulted in an overall consensus of 93% and no consensus in 7%. The κ value for STIC versus non-STIC among all 6 observers was also high at 0.67 and did not significantly differ, whether for faculty (κ=0.66) or fellows (κ=0.60). These findings confirm the reproducibility of this algorithm by a group of gynecologic pathologists who were trained on a website for that purpose. Accordingly, we recommend its use in research studies. Before applying it to routine clinical practice, the algorithm should be evaluated by general surgical pathologists in a community setting. |
DOI | 10.1097/PGP.0b013e31823b8831 |
Alternate Journal | Int J Gynecol Pathol |
PubMed ID | 22498942 |
PubMed Central ID | PMC3366037 |
Grant List | R01 CA103937 / CA / NCI NIH HHS / United States R01 CA103937-08 / CA / NCI NIH HHS / United States R01 CA129080 / CA / NCI NIH HHS / United States R01 CA129080-05 / CA / NCI NIH HHS / United States |
Related Faculty:
Anna Yemelyanova, M.D.