Baak J P, Lindeman J, Overdiep S H, Langley F A
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1982 Feb;13(1):51-5. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(82)90037-5.
Microscopical sections of forty-nine ovarian tumors have been assessed as benign, borderline or malignant by four different pathologists, who were unaware of the FIGO stage and clinical follow-up of each patient and each others' diagnosis. There was absolute agreement in 37 cases (75.5%), and disagreement in 12 cases (24.5%). The majority of the disagreements involved borderline-malignant differences. If one of the pathologists did disagree with the other three (in 9 cases, or 18%), there is no correlation between disagreement and histopathological experience. In three cases (6.5%) two pathologists did disagree with the other two. It is concluded that in pathology, objective reproducible and if possible, quantitative techniques should be used instead of subjective grading methods. The probability of the diagnosis should be expressed in a numerical way.
49例卵巢肿瘤的显微切片由4位不同的病理学家评估为良性、交界性或恶性，这些病理学家并不知晓每位患者的国际妇产科联盟（FIGO）分期及临床随访情况，彼此之间也不知道对方的诊断结果。在37例（75.5%）病例中诊断完全一致，12例（24.5%）存在分歧。大多数分歧涉及交界性与恶性的差异。如果有一位病理学家与其他三位意见不同（9例，占18%），这种分歧与组织病理学经验之间没有相关性。在3例（6.5%）中，两位病理学家与另外两位意见不同。得出的结论是，在病理学中，应使用客观可重复且尽可能定量的技术，而非主观分级方法。诊断的概率应以数字形式表示。
