Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
International study group on rectal cancer regression grading: Interobserver variability with commonly used regression grading systems
Human Pathology, Volume 43, No. 11, Year 2012
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
The aim of this study was to ascertain the level of concordance among gastrointestinal pathologists for regression grading in rectal cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Seventeen gastrointestinal pathologists participated using the Mandard, Dworak, and modified rectal cancer regression grading systems to grade 10 representative slides that were selected from 10 cases of rectal cancer treated with long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The slides were scanned with a whole-slide scanner generating dynamic digitized images. The results showed very little concordance across the 3 grading systems, with κ values of 0.28, 0.35, and 0.38 for the Mandard, Dworak, and modified rectal cancer regression grading systems, respectively. In only 1 of 10 study cases was there unanimous grading concordance using the modified rectal cancer regression grading system. It was felt that these systems lacked precision and clarity for reproducible, accurate regression grading. The study concluded that there was a need for a simple, reproducible regression grading system with clear criteria, a cumulative or composite score taking into account all sections of the tumor bed that is sampled rather than the worst section (highest grade), and there should be a uniform method of sampling of these specimens. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.
Authors & Co-Authors
Chetty, Runjan M.
United Kingdom, Oxford
University of Oxford
Gill, Pelvender Singh
United Kingdom, Oxford
University of Oxford
Govender, Dhirendra A.
South Africa, Observatory
Groote Schuur Hospital
Bateman, Adrian Calvin
United Kingdom, Southampton
University Hospital Southampton Nhs Foundation Trust
Chang, Heejin
South Korea, Goyang
National Cancer Center, Gyeonggi
Deshpande, Vikram S.
United States, Boston
Massachusetts General Hospital
Driman, David Kevin
Canada, London
Western University
Gómez, Marisa L.
Spain, Pamplona
Hospital de Navarra
Greywoode, Godman I.N.
United Kingdom, Oxford
University of Oxford
Jaynes, Eleanor
United Kingdom, Southampton
University Hospital Southampton Nhs Foundation Trust
Lee, Cheok Soon
Australia, Penrith
Western Sydney University
Locketz, Michael
South Africa, Observatory
Groote Schuur Hospital
Rowsell, Corwyn H.
Canada, Toronto
University of Toronto
Rullier, Anne
France, Talence
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux
Serra, Stefano
Canada, Toronto
University of Toronto
Shepherd, Neil A.
United Kingdom, Cheltenham
Cheltenham General Hospital
Szentgyorgyi, Eva
Canada, Toronto
University of Toronto
Vajpeyi, Rajkumar
Canada, Toronto
University of Toronto
Wang, Laimun
United Kingdom, Oxford
University of Oxford
Bateman, Andrew
United Kingdom, Southampton
University Hospital Southampton Nhs Foundation Trust
Statistics
Citations: 92
Authors: 20
Affiliations: 11
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.humpath.2012.01.020
ISSN:
00468177
e-ISSN:
15328392
Research Areas
Cancer