Suppr超能文献

用于肺癌 HRCT 筛查随机对照试验统一诊断的欧美病理专家组。

EU-USA pathology panel for uniform diagnosis in randomised controlled trials for HRCT screening in lung cancer.

作者信息

Thunnissen F B, Kerr K M, Brambilla E, Comin C E, Franklin W A, Guldhammerskov B, Westra W H, Flieder D B

机构信息

Department of Pathology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Eur Respir J. 2006 Dec;28(6):1186-9. doi: 10.1183/09031936.06.00043506. Epub 2006 Aug 9.

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials for lung cancer screening using high-resolution computed tomography are now underway. In order to allow effective future comparison of the different trials, as well as strengthening conclusions based upon the analysis of larger data sets, uniformity and consistency of pathology diagnosis are essential. The aim of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of the learning process in this difficult area of diagnostic pathology. Eight pathologists received two CD-ROMs, each with digital images of 30 cases. After diagnosing the first series, selected background reading was provided. Kappa (kappa) scores were calculated for each pathologist and category, and were compared to the consensus score. The readings of the first series showed a moderate agreement kappa score: mean+/-sd for category numbers 8 (all eight categories) and 2 were 0.53+/-0.05 and 0.65+/-0.04, respectively. The kappa 2 score distinguished between categories denoting benign and malignant lesions. The second series resulted in a good agreement kappa score: 0.65+/-0.06 for category number 8 and 0.81+/-0.02 for category number 2. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that screen-detected cases pose particular problems for pathologists and that a trained pathology panel serving randomised controlled trials is likely to lead to more consistent and accurate tissue diagnosis.

摘要

目前正在开展使用高分辨率计算机断层扫描进行肺癌筛查的随机对照试验。为了便于未来对不同试验进行有效的比较,并基于对更大数据集的分析强化结论,病理诊断的一致性和连贯性至关重要。本研究的目的是确定在这一诊断病理学难题领域学习过程的有效性。八位病理学家收到了两张光盘,每张光盘包含30个病例的数字图像。在诊断完第一组病例后,提供了选定的背景阅读材料。计算了每位病理学家和每个类别的卡帕(kappa)分数,并与共识分数进行比较。第一组病例的阅读结果显示出中等程度的一致性卡帕分数:类别8(所有八个类别)和类别2的平均±标准差分别为0.53±0.05和0.65±0.04。卡帕2分数区分了表示良性和恶性病变的类别。第二组病例的结果显示出良好的一致性卡帕分数:类别8为0.65±0.06,类别2为0.81±0.02。总之,本研究表明筛查发现的病例给病理学家带来了特殊问题,并且为随机对照试验服务的经过培训的病理小组可能会带来更一致和准确的组织诊断。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验