Inter- and Intrarater Reliability and Agreement Among Danish Head and Neck Pathologists Assessing Extranodal Extension in Lymph Node Metastases from Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinomas.
Extranodal extension
Head and neck cancer
Histopathology
Interobserver
Lymph node metastases
Oropharynx
Reliability
Squamous cell carcinoma
Journal
Head and neck pathology
ISSN: 1936-0568
Titre abrégé: Head Neck Pathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101304010
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
02
05
2022
accepted:
15
06
2022
pubmed:
14
7
2022
medline:
16
12
2022
entrez:
13
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Extranodal extension (ENE) in lymph node metastases is one of the most important prognostic factors in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Studies have shown inconsistency among pathologists in the assessment of ENE. The aims of this study were: (1) to determine the interrater and intrarater reliability and agreement in the assessment of ENE among Danish pathologists and (2) to test if a standardized assessment method may increase interrater agreement. Four Danish head and neck pathologists assessed ENE presence or absence in 120 histological slides from lymph nodes with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma metastases (first round). Subsequently, guidelines were introduced to the pathologists and a new assessment was performed (second round). Finally, two of the pathologists assessed the slides to determine intrarater reliability and agreement (third round). Interrater kappa coefficients varied between 0.57 and 0.67 in the first round and between 0.59 and 0.72 in the second round. The intrarater agreement between round 2 and 3 was 0.88 for pathologist 1 and 0.92 for pathologist 2 with resulting kappa coefficients of 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.88) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.94), respectively. We found a moderate level of reliability and agreement among pathologists for ENE in lymph node metastases from oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. The intrarater reliability and agreement was generally higher than interrater measures. Interrater agreement was slightly improved by standardized assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Extranodal extension (ENE) in lymph node metastases is one of the most important prognostic factors in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Studies have shown inconsistency among pathologists in the assessment of ENE. The aims of this study were: (1) to determine the interrater and intrarater reliability and agreement in the assessment of ENE among Danish pathologists and (2) to test if a standardized assessment method may increase interrater agreement.
METHODS
METHODS
Four Danish head and neck pathologists assessed ENE presence or absence in 120 histological slides from lymph nodes with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma metastases (first round). Subsequently, guidelines were introduced to the pathologists and a new assessment was performed (second round). Finally, two of the pathologists assessed the slides to determine intrarater reliability and agreement (third round).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Interrater kappa coefficients varied between 0.57 and 0.67 in the first round and between 0.59 and 0.72 in the second round. The intrarater agreement between round 2 and 3 was 0.88 for pathologist 1 and 0.92 for pathologist 2 with resulting kappa coefficients of 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.88) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.94), respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We found a moderate level of reliability and agreement among pathologists for ENE in lymph node metastases from oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. The intrarater reliability and agreement was generally higher than interrater measures. Interrater agreement was slightly improved by standardized assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35829862
doi: 10.1007/s12105-022-01468-z
pii: 10.1007/s12105-022-01468-z
pmc: PMC9729471
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1082-1090Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 2;382(1):60-72
pubmed: 31893516
Oral Oncol. 2016 Nov;62:60-71
pubmed: 27865373
Cancer. 1971 Nov;28(5):1255-65
pubmed: 5125672
Oral Oncol. 2018 Aug;83:73-80
pubmed: 30098782
Laryngoscope. 2022 Jan;132(1):88-95
pubmed: 34089539
Eur J Cancer. 2006 Aug;42(12):1863-8
pubmed: 16831543
Oral Oncol. 2017 Nov;74:56-61
pubmed: 29103752
Head Neck. 2012 Jun;34(6):840-5
pubmed: 22095886
Oral Oncol. 2018 Feb;77:37-42
pubmed: 29362124
Mod Pathol. 2011 Nov;24(11):1413-20
pubmed: 21701534
N Engl J Med. 2004 May 6;350(19):1945-52
pubmed: 15128894
Ann Epidemiol. 2014 Sep;24(9):673-80
pubmed: 25088752
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Aug 20;39(24):2732-2733
pubmed: 34043410
Cancer. 2013 Sep 15;119(18):3302-8
pubmed: 23797868
Head Neck. 2002 Mar;24(3):258-61
pubmed: 11891957
Head Neck. 2021 Jan;43(1):229-237
pubmed: 32969095
Head Neck. 2005 Oct;27(10):843-50
pubmed: 16161069
J Surg Oncol. 2013 May;107(6):625-33
pubmed: 23192334
Head Neck Pathol. 2021 Jun;15(2):599-607
pubmed: 32918710
Oral Oncol. 2014 Apr;50(4):311-8
pubmed: 24467937
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2021 Oct;31(4):332-338
pubmed: 34455988
Oral Oncol. 2015 Nov;51(11):985-990
pubmed: 26293844
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2017 Jul;18(7):40
pubmed: 28555375
Cancer. 2012 Jul 15;118(14):3519-30
pubmed: 22086669
Lancet. 2008 May 17;371(9625):1695-709
pubmed: 18486742
J Oral Pathol Med. 2019 Nov;48(10):863-870
pubmed: 31087397
N Engl J Med. 2004 May 6;350(19):1937-44
pubmed: 15128893
Oral Oncol. 2021 Mar;114:105169
pubmed: 33493691
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Apr;143(4):452-462
pubmed: 30500291
Head Neck. 2011 Apr;33(4):525-8
pubmed: 20824808
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Apr;47(4):721-731
pubmed: 32948393
Am J Surg. 1985 Oct;150(4):495-9
pubmed: 4051115
Oral Oncol. 2006 Mar;42(3):229-39
pubmed: 16150633
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):96-106
pubmed: 21130355