DISAGREEMENT OF HISTOPATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES OF DIFFERENT PATHOLOGISTS IN OVARIAN-TUMORS - WITH SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
DISAGREEMENT OF HISTOPATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES OF DIFFERENT PATHOLOGISTS IN OVARIAN-TUMORS - WITH SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0028-2243(82)90037-5
复制
发表时间：
1982-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
LANGLEY, FA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BAAK, JPA;LINDEMAN, J;LANGLEY, FA
49例卵巢肿瘤的显微切片由4名病理学家评估为良性、交界性或恶性，这些病理学家不知道FIGO [国际妇产科联合会]分期和每位患者的临床随访以及其他诊断。完全一致37例（75.5%），不一致12例（24.5%）。大多数分歧涉及边界恶性差异。如果1名病理学家不同意其他3名（9例或18%），则不同意与组织病理学经验之间无相关性。在3例病例（6.5%）中，2名病理学家不同意另外2名。客观的，可重复的，如果可能的话，定量技术应用于病理学，而不是主观的分级方法。诊断的概率应该用数字表示。
Microscopical sections of 49 ovarian tumors were assessed as benign, borderline or malignant by 4 pathologists who were unaware of the FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stage and clinical follow-up of each patient and each others diagnoses. There was absolute agreement in 37 cases (75.5%) and disagreement in 12 cases (24.5%). The majority of the disagreements involved borderline-malignant differences. If 1 pathologist did disagree with the other 3 (9 cases or 18%), there was no correlation between disagreement and histopathological experience. In 3 cases (6.5%) 2 pathologists did disagree with the other 2. Objective, reproducible and, if possible, quantitative techniques should be used in pathology instead of subjective grading methods. The probability of the diagnosis should be expressed in a numerical way.