Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
editorial
. 1993 Nov;68(5):827–830. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1993.440

Pathology review in cancer research.

L S Freedman, D Machin
PMCID: PMC1968735  PMID: 8217596

Abstract

Pathology observer agreement studies are clearly important in the development of new pathology assessments and in the quality control of those assessments in common use. Setting up such studies, and reporting and interpreting their results requires careful thought and statistical expertise. Investigators are advised to seek collaboration with a statistician before embarking on these studies. Pathology reference panel reviews in multicentre studies are useful for checking eligibility when there is a high level of disagreement on the eligibility criterion between local pathologists and the reference panel members, but good agreement between members of the panel. However, such situations are uncommon.

Full text

PDF
830

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baker S. G., Freedman L. S., Parmar M. K. Using replicate observations in observer agreement studies with binary assessments. Biometrics. 1991 Dec;47(4):1327–1338. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Borden E. C., Amato D. A., Edmonson J. H., Ritch P. S., Shiraki M. Randomized comparison of doxorubicin and vindesine to doxorubicin for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas. Cancer. 1990 Sep 1;66(5):862–867. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900901)66:5<862::aid-cncr2820660509>3.0.co;2-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Falkson G., Cnaan A., Schutt A. J., Ryan L. M., Falkson H. C. Prognostic factors for survival in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res. 1988 Dec 15;48(24 Pt 1):7314–7318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Freedman L. S., Parmar M. K., Baker S. G. The design of observer agreement studies with binary assessments. Stat Med. 1993 Jan 30;12(2):165–179. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780120208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Henson D. E. End points and significance of reproducibility in pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1989 Aug;113(8):830–831. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kraemer H. C. How many raters? Toward the most reliable diagnostic consensus. Stat Med. 1992 Feb 15;11(3):317–331. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780110305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Landis J. R., Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lee A. K., DeLellis R. A., Silverman M. L., Wolfe H. J. Lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in breast carcinoma: a useful prognostic indicator? Hum Pathol. 1986 Oct;17(10):984–987. doi: 10.1016/s0046-8177(86)80081-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Maclure M., Willett W. C. Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Aug;126(2):161–169. doi: 10.1093/aje/126.2.161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ooms E. C., Blok A. P., Veldhuizen R. W. The reproducibility of a quantitative grading system of bladder tumours. Histopathology. 1985 May;9(5):501–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1985.tb02831.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Owens W. D., Felts J. A., Spitznagel E. L., Jr ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology. 1978 Oct;49(4):239–243. doi: 10.1097/00000542-197810000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Richards B., Parmar M. K., Anderson C. K., Ansell I. D., Grigor K., Hall R. R., Morley A. R., Mostofi F. K., Risdon R. A., Uscinska B. M. Interpretation of biopsies of "normal" urothelium in patients with superficial bladder cancer. MRC Superficial Bladder Cancer Sub Group. Br J Urol. 1991 Apr;67(4):369–375. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1991.tb15164.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rogot E., Goldberg I. D. A proposed index for measuring agreement in test-retest studies. J Chronic Dis. 1966 Sep;19(9):991–1006. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(66)90032-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wilson J. F., Kjeldsberg C. R., Sposto R., Jenkin R. D., Chilcote R. R., Coccia P., Exelby R. R., Kersey J., Meadows A., Siegel S. The pathology of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of childhood: II. Reproducibility and relevance of the histologic classification of "undifferentiated" lymphomas (Burkitt's versus non-Burkitt's). Hum Pathol. 1987 Oct;18(10):1008–1014. doi: 10.1016/s0046-8177(87)80217-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wolf B. C., Gilchrist K. W., Mann R. B., Neiman R. S. Evaluation of pathology review of malignant lymphomas and Hodgkin's disease in cooperative clinical trials. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experience. Cancer. 1988 Oct 1;62(7):1301–1305. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19881001)62:7<1301::aid-cncr2820620710>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES