Interobserver variability in the interpretation of epithelial ovarian cancer

Enrique Hernandez, Belur Bhagavan, Tim H. Parmley, Neil B. Rosenshein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The interobserver diagnostic reproducibility for epithelial ovarian neoplasia was studied. The histologic sections of 68 ovarian tumors from 34 patients were independently reviewed by two pathologists from different institutions, without knowledge of the clinical course. Each observer rendered 68 diagnoses. The interobserver agreement rate for histologic type was 60% and for histologic grade 66%. In the 23 instances in which a discrepancy in grade occurred, 5 (23%) were disagreements in the diagnosis of borderline versus malignant tumors. On analysis of the diagnostic variability with regard to histologic type, one observer (A) classified 60% of the tumors as undifferentiated, while the other observer (B) classified 59% of the tumors as serous. In an attempt to understand the reasons for the diagnostic disagreements, the observers were asked to simultaneously reexamine the material. This occurred 6 months after the initial review and they were unaware of their original diagnoses. The diagnostic differences with regard to histologic type were mainly due to (1) tumor cell heterogeneity, and (2) difficulty in discriminating between serous and undifferentiated tumors. The differences in grade were largely related to the use of different criteria. Observer A used mitotic counts while observer B used glandular pattern and its replacement by solid sheets of epithelium. Observer B consistently assigned a higher grade to the tumors. In making therapeutic decisions, clinicians should be aware of the interobserver diagnostic variability and the reasons for this variability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)117-123
Number of pages7
JournalGynecologic Oncology
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1984

Fingerprint

Observer Variation
Neoplasms
Ovarian epithelial cancer
Decision Making
Epithelium

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Interobserver variability in the interpretation of epithelial ovarian cancer. / Hernandez, Enrique; Bhagavan, Belur; Parmley, Tim H.; Rosenshein, Neil B.

In: Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1984, p. 117-123.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hernandez, Enrique ; Bhagavan, Belur ; Parmley, Tim H. ; Rosenshein, Neil B. / Interobserver variability in the interpretation of epithelial ovarian cancer. In: Gynecologic Oncology. 1984 ; Vol. 17, No. 1. pp. 117-123.
@article{267f34aa4c1c464c97ad347e1c64264f,
title = "Interobserver variability in the interpretation of epithelial ovarian cancer",
abstract = "The interobserver diagnostic reproducibility for epithelial ovarian neoplasia was studied. The histologic sections of 68 ovarian tumors from 34 patients were independently reviewed by two pathologists from different institutions, without knowledge of the clinical course. Each observer rendered 68 diagnoses. The interobserver agreement rate for histologic type was 60{\%} and for histologic grade 66{\%}. In the 23 instances in which a discrepancy in grade occurred, 5 (23{\%}) were disagreements in the diagnosis of borderline versus malignant tumors. On analysis of the diagnostic variability with regard to histologic type, one observer (A) classified 60{\%} of the tumors as undifferentiated, while the other observer (B) classified 59{\%} of the tumors as serous. In an attempt to understand the reasons for the diagnostic disagreements, the observers were asked to simultaneously reexamine the material. This occurred 6 months after the initial review and they were unaware of their original diagnoses. The diagnostic differences with regard to histologic type were mainly due to (1) tumor cell heterogeneity, and (2) difficulty in discriminating between serous and undifferentiated tumors. The differences in grade were largely related to the use of different criteria. Observer A used mitotic counts while observer B used glandular pattern and its replacement by solid sheets of epithelium. Observer B consistently assigned a higher grade to the tumors. In making therapeutic decisions, clinicians should be aware of the interobserver diagnostic variability and the reasons for this variability.",
author = "Enrique Hernandez and Belur Bhagavan and Parmley, {Tim H.} and Rosenshein, {Neil B.}",
year = "1984",
doi = "10.1016/0090-8258(84)90065-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "117--123",
journal = "Gynecologic Oncology",
issn = "0090-8258",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interobserver variability in the interpretation of epithelial ovarian cancer

AU - Hernandez, Enrique

AU - Bhagavan, Belur

AU - Parmley, Tim H.

AU - Rosenshein, Neil B.

PY - 1984

Y1 - 1984

N2 - The interobserver diagnostic reproducibility for epithelial ovarian neoplasia was studied. The histologic sections of 68 ovarian tumors from 34 patients were independently reviewed by two pathologists from different institutions, without knowledge of the clinical course. Each observer rendered 68 diagnoses. The interobserver agreement rate for histologic type was 60% and for histologic grade 66%. In the 23 instances in which a discrepancy in grade occurred, 5 (23%) were disagreements in the diagnosis of borderline versus malignant tumors. On analysis of the diagnostic variability with regard to histologic type, one observer (A) classified 60% of the tumors as undifferentiated, while the other observer (B) classified 59% of the tumors as serous. In an attempt to understand the reasons for the diagnostic disagreements, the observers were asked to simultaneously reexamine the material. This occurred 6 months after the initial review and they were unaware of their original diagnoses. The diagnostic differences with regard to histologic type were mainly due to (1) tumor cell heterogeneity, and (2) difficulty in discriminating between serous and undifferentiated tumors. The differences in grade were largely related to the use of different criteria. Observer A used mitotic counts while observer B used glandular pattern and its replacement by solid sheets of epithelium. Observer B consistently assigned a higher grade to the tumors. In making therapeutic decisions, clinicians should be aware of the interobserver diagnostic variability and the reasons for this variability.

AB - The interobserver diagnostic reproducibility for epithelial ovarian neoplasia was studied. The histologic sections of 68 ovarian tumors from 34 patients were independently reviewed by two pathologists from different institutions, without knowledge of the clinical course. Each observer rendered 68 diagnoses. The interobserver agreement rate for histologic type was 60% and for histologic grade 66%. In the 23 instances in which a discrepancy in grade occurred, 5 (23%) were disagreements in the diagnosis of borderline versus malignant tumors. On analysis of the diagnostic variability with regard to histologic type, one observer (A) classified 60% of the tumors as undifferentiated, while the other observer (B) classified 59% of the tumors as serous. In an attempt to understand the reasons for the diagnostic disagreements, the observers were asked to simultaneously reexamine the material. This occurred 6 months after the initial review and they were unaware of their original diagnoses. The diagnostic differences with regard to histologic type were mainly due to (1) tumor cell heterogeneity, and (2) difficulty in discriminating between serous and undifferentiated tumors. The differences in grade were largely related to the use of different criteria. Observer A used mitotic counts while observer B used glandular pattern and its replacement by solid sheets of epithelium. Observer B consistently assigned a higher grade to the tumors. In making therapeutic decisions, clinicians should be aware of the interobserver diagnostic variability and the reasons for this variability.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0021353252&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0021353252&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0090-8258(84)90065-9

DO - 10.1016/0090-8258(84)90065-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 6693048

AN - SCOPUS:0021353252

VL - 17

SP - 117

EP - 123

JO - Gynecologic Oncology

JF - Gynecologic Oncology

SN - 0090-8258

IS - 1

ER -