Abstract
AIMS--To describe a systematic investigation of interobserver differences in interpretation of nuclear morphology in preparations of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS--The screening/reviewing facility on the highly optimised microscope environment was used to individually tag 127 nuclei, chosen to reflect the spectrum of morphological appearances in nuclear preparations from three biopsy specimens of SCLC. Each nucleus was reviewed and labelled as control (lymphocyte), malignant or unsatisfactory by each of four observers. DNA histograms were plotted for each specimen using the nuclei identified as malignant by each participant. The histograms were compared in terms of identification of DNA stemlines and by calculation of a 5c exceeding rate (5cER). RESULTS--Interobserver variation in assessment of morphology was seen in 55.1% of nuclei. Disagreement occurred most frequently in the malignant/unsatisfactory category. Differences in morphological classification had little influence on histogram assessment by means of visual inspection but did show an effect on 5cER. CONCLUSIONS--There are significant interobserver differences in subjective assessment of nuclear morphology in cytometric preparations. This effect may seriously influence cytometric measurements.
Full text
PDF
Images in this article
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Aziz D. C., Peter J. B. DNA ploidy and cell-cycle analysis: tools for assessment of cancer prognosis. J Clin Lab Anal. 1991;5(6):422–438. doi: 10.1002/jcla.1860050611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brugal G., Dye R., Krief B., Chassery J. M., Tanke H., Tucker J. H. HOME: highly optimized microscope environment. Cytometry. 1992;13(2):109–116. doi: 10.1002/cyto.990130202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Böcking A., Chatelain R., Auffermann W., Krüger G. R., Asmus B., Wohltmann D., Schuster C. DNA-grading of malignant lymphomas. I. Prognostic significance, reproducibility and comparison with other classifications. Anticancer Res. 1986 Sep-Oct;6(5):1205–1216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carey F. A. Measurement of nuclear DNA content in histological and cytological specimens: principles and applications. J Pathol. 1994 Apr;172(4):307–312. doi: 10.1002/path.1711720404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hedley D. W., Friedlander M. L., Taylor I. W., Rugg C. A., Musgrove E. A. Method for analysis of cellular DNA content of paraffin-embedded pathological material using flow cytometry. J Histochem Cytochem. 1983 Nov;31(11):1333–1335. doi: 10.1177/31.11.6619538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wersto R. P., Liblit R. L., Koss L. G. Flow cytometric DNA analysis of human solid tumors: a review of the interpretation of DNA histograms. Hum Pathol. 1991 Nov;22(11):1085–1098. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(91)90260-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]