• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

前列腺癌的组织学评估。(II):一种组织学分级系统的可重复性。

Histological evaluation of prostatic cancer. (II): Reproducibility of a histological grading system.

作者信息

Svanholm H, Starklint H, Barlebo H, Olsen S

机构信息

University Institute of Pathology, Odense Hospital, Denmark.

出版信息

APMIS. 1990 Mar;98(3):229-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1990.tb01026.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1699-0463.1990.tb01026.x
PMID:2317346
Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility, expressed by kappa coefficients, of the histological grading system of prostatic cancer as proposed by Schroeder, Hop, Blom and Mostofi in 1985. This grading system has five prognostic groups based on combinations of growth pattern, mitoses and nuclear anaplasia. All histological slides from 85 cases of prostatic carcinoma were blindly evaluated on two independent occasions by each of four pathologists. The overall INTER-observer agreement and mean INTRA-observer agreement regarding "prognostic group" were 0.55 and 0.69 respectively, whereas the kappa coefficients were 0.38 and 0.57 respectively. An acceptable level of INTER-observer reproducibility of prognostic group I (kappa = 0.70), of the parameter "growth pattern" (kappa = 0.60) and of "slight nuclear anaplasia" (kappa = 0.62) was found. A low overall kappa coefficient of "mitoses" and "nuclear anaplasia" was found. Based on the well reproducible parameters a simplified grading system is proposed.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估1985年施罗德、霍普、布洛姆和莫斯托菲提出的前列腺癌组织学分级系统的可重复性,用kappa系数表示。该分级系统基于生长模式、有丝分裂和核间变的组合分为五个预后组。四位病理学家分别在两个独立的时间对85例前列腺癌的所有组织学切片进行了盲法评估。关于“预后组”的总体观察者间一致性和平均观察者内一致性分别为0.55和0.69,而kappa系数分别为0.38和0.57。发现预后组I(kappa = 0.70)、参数“生长模式”(kappa = 0.60)和“轻度核间变”(kappa = 0.62)的观察者间可重复性达到可接受水平。发现“有丝分裂”和“核间变”的总体kappa系数较低。基于可重复性良好的参数,提出了一种简化的分级系统。

相似文献

1
Histological evaluation of prostatic cancer. (II): Reproducibility of a histological grading system.前列腺癌的组织学评估。(II):一种组织学分级系统的可重复性。
APMIS. 1990 Mar;98(3):229-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1990.tb01026.x.
2
Histological evaluation of prostatic cancer. (III): Reproducibility of assessment of tumour volume and its possible significance for prognosis.
APMIS. 1990 Mar;98(3):237-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1990.tb01027.x.
3
Histological evaluation of prostatic cancer. 1. Reproducibility of tumour type.
APMIS. 1989 Aug;97(8):699-704. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1989.tb00465.x.
4
Histological grading of prostatic carcinoma in prostatectomy specimens. Comparison of prognostic accuracy of five grading systems.
Br J Urol. 1990 Apr;65(4):368-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1990.tb14758.x.
5
[Reproducibility of malignancy grading in prostatic cancers using the Gleason-Böckling system].[使用格利森-伯克灵系统对前列腺癌恶性程度分级的可重复性]
Orv Hetil. 1997 May 11;138(19):1195-9.
6
Grading of prostatic cancer: III. Multivariate analysis of prognostic parameters.前列腺癌的分级:III. 预后参数的多变量分析。
Prostate. 1985;7(1):13-20. doi: 10.1002/pros.2990070103.
7
Grading of prostatic cancer: II. The prognostic significance of the presence of multiple architectural patterns.前列腺癌的分级:II. 多种结构模式存在的预后意义。
Prostate. 1985;6(4):403-15. doi: 10.1002/pros.2990060409.
8
Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists.前列腺癌Gleason分级的观察者间可重复性:泌尿外科病理学家。
Hum Pathol. 2001 Jan;32(1):74-80. doi: 10.1053/hupa.2001.21134.
9
Histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma.前列腺癌的组织学分级
Pathol Res Pract. 1980;168(1-3):115-25. doi: 10.1016/S0344-0338(80)80211-1.
10
The updated grading system of prostate carcinoma: an inter-observer agreement study among general pathologists in an academic practice.前列腺癌更新后的分级系统:学术实践中普通病理学家之间的观察者间一致性研究
APMIS. 2017 Nov;125(11):957-961. doi: 10.1111/apm.12741. Epub 2017 Sep 15.

引用本文的文献

1
What is better/reliable, mitosis counting or Ki67/MIB1 staining?有丝分裂计数和Ki67/MIB1染色,哪种方法更好/更可靠?
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2016 Oct;5(5):543-546. doi: 10.21037/tlcr.2016.10.11.
2
Interobserver agreement of proliferation index (Ki-67) outperforms mitotic count in pulmonary carcinoids.增殖指数(Ki-67)的观察者间一致性在肺类癌中优于有丝分裂计数。
Virchows Arch. 2013 May;462(5):507-13. doi: 10.1007/s00428-013-1408-2. Epub 2013 Apr 5.
3
Histopathological grading and DNA ploidy as prognostic markers in metastatic prostatic cancer.
组织病理学分级和DNA倍体作为转移性前列腺癌的预后标志物
Br J Cancer. 1995 May;71(5):1055-60. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1995.203.