当前位置： SCI文献检索 > OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY期刊下所有文献 > Discrepancy in the interpretation of cervical histology by gynecologic pathologists.

Discrepancy in the interpretation of cervical histology by gynecologic pathologists.

Abstract：

OBJECTIVE:To determine if subspecialty review of cervical histology improves diagnostic consensus of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). METHODS:After routine histologic assessment within the hospital pathology department, 119 colposcopic cervical biopsies were interpreted by two subspecialty-trained gynecologic pathologists (GYN I and GYN II) blinded to each other's interpretations and to the interpretations of the hospital general pathologists (GEN). Biopsies were classified as normal (including cervicitis), low grade (LG, including CIN I and human papillomavirus changes), and high grade (HG, including CIN II/III). The interobserver agreement rates between GEN and GYN I, between GEN and GYN II, and between GYN I and GYN II were described using the kappa statistic. The proportions of biopsies assigned to each biopsy class were compared using McNemar test. RESULTS:Interobserver agreement rates between GEN and GYN I were moderate for normal (kappa = 0.53) and LG (kappa = 0.46) and excellent for HG (kappa = 0.76). There were no significant differences in the classifications between GEN and GYN I. Interobserver agreement rates between GEN and GYN II were moderate for normal (kappa = 0.50) and LG (kappa = 0.44) and excellent for HG (kappa = 0.84). Also, GYN II was significantly more likely to classify biopsies as normal (P <.001) and less likely to classify biopsies as LG (P <.001). The interobserver agreement rates between GYN I and GYN II were moderate for normal (kappa = 0.61) and LG (kappa = 0.41) and excellent for HG (kappa = 0.84). Also, GYN II was significantly more likely to classify biopsies as normal (P <.001) and less likely to classify biopsies as LG (P =.01). CONCLUSION:Interobserver agreement between two gynecologic pathologists was no better than that observed between general and gynecologic pathologists. Subspecialty review of cervical histology does not enhance diagnostic consensus of CIN.

journal_name

Obstet Gynecol

journal_title

Obstetrics and gynecology

authors

Parker MF,Zahn CM,Vogel KM,Olsen CH,Miyazawa K,O'Connor DM

doi

10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02058-6

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2002-08-01 00:00:00

pages

277-80

issue

eissn

0029-7844

issn

1873-233X

pii

S0029784402020586

journal_volume

100

pub_type

杂志文章

在线工具

Discrepancy in the interpretation of cervical histology by gynecologic pathologists.