Grading in histopathology

Abstract Grading is the process of subdividing a diagnostic category to increase the amount of information in a histopathology report and so assist clinicians in making individual therapeutic decisions. A good grading system will have a high signal to noise ratio with good inter- and intra-observer agreement. Many grading systems in histopathology have been produced by a top-down design process which does not take into account the natural distribution of cases. Such systems may produce very poor results if the arbitrary boundaries of the grading system do not coincide with the natural boundaries of clusters of cases. This review examines the fundamental processes involved in grading and demonstrates bottom-up design processes which have the potential to produce effective grading systems.

[1]  P. Slootweg,et al.  Grading systems in head and neck dysplasia: their prognostic value, weaknesses and utility , 2009, Head & neck oncology.

[2]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.

[3]  Päivi Heikkilä,et al.  Subtyping of Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry to Investigate a Relationship between Subtype and Short and Long Term Survival: A Collaborative Analysis of Data for 10,159 Cases from 12 Studies , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[4]  Simon S. Cross,et al.  Aptitude testing and assessment of training progress in histopathology , 2005 .

[5]  Samar Betmouni,et al.  What Levels of Agreement Can Be Expected Between Histopathologists Assigning Cases to Discrete Nominal Categories? A Study of the Diagnosis of Hyperplastic and Adenomatous Colorectal Polyps , 2000, Modern Pathology.

[6]  S S Cross,et al.  Kappa statistics as indicators of quality assurance in histopathology and cytopathology. , 1996, Journal of clinical pathology.

[7]  S S Cross,et al.  Observer accuracy in estimating proportions in images: implications for the semiquantitative assessment of staining reactions and a proposal for a new system , 2001, Journal of clinical pathology.

[8]  A D Ramsay,et al.  Errors in histopathology reporting: detection and avoidance , 1999, Histopathology.

[9]  J. Going,et al.  Scoring nuclear pleomorphism in breast cancer , 2001, Histopathology.

[10]  Timo Paavonen,et al.  International Variation in Histologic Grading Is Large, and Persistent Feedback Does Not Improve Reproducibility , 2003, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  F T Bosman,et al.  Dysplasia classification: pathology in disgrace? , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[12]  Michael Peacock,et al.  Hierarchical Clustering Analysis of Tissue Microarray Immunostaining Data Identifies Prognostically Significant Groups of Breast Carcinoma , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[13]  S S Cross,et al.  Grading and scoring in histopathology , 1998, Histopathology.

[14]  J A Morris,et al.  Information and observer disagreement in histopathology , 1994, Histopathology.

[15]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. , 1999, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[16]  A. J. Robertson,et al.  Consistency of histopathological reporting of laryngeal dysplasia , 2000 .