Pedersen L, Holck S, Schiødt T, Zedeler K, Mouridsen H T
Department of Oncology ONA, Finsen Institute, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1989 Oct;14(1):91-9. doi: 10.1007/BF01805979.
One hundred thirty-one breast carcinomas with medullary features, registered in the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group from 1977-1982, have been histopathologically reviewed by two senior pathologists and classified as typical medullary carcinoma (TMC), atypical medullary carcinoma (AMC), and non-medullary carcinoma (NMC). Diagnostic criteria were based on those put forward by Ridolfi et al. and Fisher et al. The procedure was repeated with an interval of about one year by both pathologists. The diagnostic interobserver agreement was 72% with a Kappa of 0.55. The intraobserver agreement was 77% and 63% with Kappa values of 0.64 and 0.44, respectively. To see whether the observed inter- and intraobserver variability had any prognostic implications, diagnostic subgroups for both pathologists were analyzed with Kaplan Meier plots for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and with log rank tests. In the first evaluation pathologist 1 segregated a group of TMC with a significantly better RFS than for the NMC group, and pathologist 2 segregated a group of TMC with a corresponding strong trend. These findings could not, however, be reproduced in the second evaluation. The study indicates that the criteria of TMC and AMC as proposed by Ridolfi et al. need to be sharpened and simplified in order to reduce inter- and intraobserver variability. Larger studies with a control group of infiltrating ductal carcinomas are mandatory to elucidate the clinical importance of the diagnoses of Typical and Atypical Medullary Carcinoma of the breast.
1977年至1982年在丹麦乳腺癌协作组登记的131例具有髓样特征的乳腺癌,由两名资深病理学家进行了组织病理学复查,并分类为典型髓样癌(TMC)、非典型髓样癌(AMC)和非髓样癌(NMC)。诊断标准基于里多尔菲等人和费舍尔等人提出的标准。两名病理学家均以约一年的间隔重复该程序。观察者间诊断一致性为72%,卡帕值为0.55。观察者内一致性分别为77%和63%,卡帕值分别为0.64和0.44。为了观察观察到的观察者间和观察者内变异性是否有任何预后意义,对两名病理学家的诊断亚组进行了无复发生存期(RFS)的Kaplan-Meier图分析和对数秩检验。在首次评估中,病理学家1将一组TMC分离出来,其RFS明显优于NMC组,病理学家2也分离出一组具有相应强烈趋势的TMC。然而,这些发现无法在第二次评估中重现。该研究表明,里多尔菲等人提出的TMC和AMC标准需要进一步细化和简化,以减少观察者间和观察者内的变异性。必须开展更大规模的研究,并设立浸润性导管癌对照组,以阐明乳腺典型和非典型髓样癌诊断的临床重要性。