Neurology India · 2012
Concordance between local, institutional, and central pathology review in glioblastoma: implications for research and practice: a pilot study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gupta Tejpal, Nair Vimoj, Epari Sridhar, Pietsch Torsten, Jalali Rakesh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is significant inter-observer variation amongst the neuro-pathologists in the typing, subtyping, and grading of glial neoplasms for diagnosis. Centralized pathology review has been proposed to minimize this inter-observer variation and is now almost mandatory for accrual into multicentric trials. We sought to assess the concordance between neuro-pathologists on histopathological diagnosis of glioblastoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparison of local, institutional, and central neuro-oncopathology reporting in a cohort of 34 patients with newly diagnosed supratentorial glioblastoma accrued consecutively at a tertiary-care institution on a prospective trial testing the addition of a new agent to standard chemo-radiation regimen.
RESULTS: Concordance was sub-optimal between local histological diagnosis and central review, fair between local diagnosis and institutional review, and good between institutional and central review, with respect to histological typing/subtyping. Twelve (39%) of 31 patients with local histological diagnosis had identical tumor type, subtype and grade on central review. Overall agreement was modestly better (52%) between local diagnosis and institutional review. In contrast, 28 (83%) of 34 patients had completely concordant histopathologic diagnosis between institutional and central review. The inter-observer reliability test showed poor agreement between local and central review (kappa statistic=0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.03-0.32, P=0.043), but moderate agreement between institutional and central review (kappa statistic=0.51, 95%CI: 0.17-0.84, P=0.00003). Agreement between local diagnosis and institutional review was fair.
CONCLUSIONS: There exists significant inter-observer variation regarding histopathological diagnosis of glioblastoma with significant implications for clinical research and practice. There is a need for more objective, quantitative, robust, and reproducible criteria for better subtyping for accurate diagnosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparison of local, institutional, and central neuro-oncopathology reporting in a cohort of 34 patients with newly diagnosed supratentorial glioblastoma accrued consecutively at a tertiary-care institution on a prospective trial testing the addition of a new agent to standard chemo-radiation regimen.
RESULTS: Concordance was sub-optimal between local histological diagnosis and central review, fair between local diagnosis and institutional review, and good between institutional and central review, with respect to histological typing/subtyping. Twelve (39%) of 31 patients with local histological diagnosis had identical tumor type, subtype and grade on central review. Overall agreement was modestly better (52%) between local diagnosis and institutional review. In contrast, 28 (83%) of 34 patients had completely concordant histopathologic diagnosis between institutional and central review. The inter-observer reliability test showed poor agreement between local and central review (kappa statistic=0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.03-0.32, P=0.043), but moderate agreement between institutional and central review (kappa statistic=0.51, 95%CI: 0.17-0.84, P=0.00003). Agreement between local diagnosis and institutional review was fair.
CONCLUSIONS: There exists significant inter-observer variation regarding histopathological diagnosis of glioblastoma with significant implications for clinical research and practice. There is a need for more objective, quantitative, robust, and reproducible criteria for better subtyping for accurate diagnosis.