Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29877920›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of surgical pathology2019

International Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Criteria and Classification: Validation and Interobserver Reproducibility.

Anjelica Hodgson, Kay J Park, Bojana Djordjevic, Brooke E Howitt, Marisa R Nucci, Esther Oliva, Simona Stolnicu, Bin Xu, Robert A Soslow, Carlos Parra-Herran

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. P16Scientific reports · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Anjelica HodgsonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto.
Kay J ParkDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Bojana DjordjevicDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto.
Brooke E HowittDepartment of Pathology, Stanford Medical Centre, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Marisa R NucciDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
Esther OlivaDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Simona StolnicuDepartment of Pathology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Targu Mures, Targu Mures, Romania.
Bin XuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto.
Robert A SoslowDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Carlos Parra-HerranDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto.
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USHarvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USStanford University · USUniversitatea de Medicină, Farmacie, Științe și Tehnologie „George Emil Palade” din Târgu Mureș · RO

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current World Health Organization (WHO) classification for endocervical adenocarcinoma (EA) is based on descriptive morphologic characteristics; however, it does not fully reflect our current knowledge of the diverse pathogenesis of cervical glandular neoplasia. A novel classification system, the International Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Criteria and Classification (IECC), which incorporates etiology and biological behavior into the morphologic scheme, has been recently proposed. We aimed to validate the IECC by assessing its interobserver reproducibility in comparison to the WHO system. A cohort of 75 EAs was reviewed independently by 7 gynecologic pathologists and categorized following IECC and WHO criteria based on hematoxylin and eosin material alone and after immunohistochemistry results for p16, PR, p53, Napsin-A, vimentin, CDX2, and GATA3 were provided. Human papillomavirus (HPV) in situ hybridization and polymerase chain reaction results were compared with consensus diagnoses. IECC was superior to WHO in terms of interobserver agreement with κ=0.46 versus 0.3, respectively, on hematoxylin and eosin review and κ=0.51 versus 0.33, respectively, with immunohistochemistry. Under the IECC, 73 (97%) of EAs had majority agreement (≥4 reviewers in agreement) whereas 42 (56%) had perfect agreement (7/7 reviewers in agreement). Conversely, WHO showed majority agreement in 56 (75%) and perfect agreement in only 7 (10%) EAs. Reproducibility was poor in HPV-related WHO types (usual κ=0.36, mucinous not otherwise specified κ=0.13, intestinal κ=0.31, villoglandular κ=0.21) and good in major HPV-unrelated categories (gastric type κ=0.63, clear cell κ=0.81, mesonephric κ=0.5). Classification as per the IECC had excellent correlation with HPV status (by RNA in situ hybridization or polymerase chain reaction). We have shown that the IECC has superior interobserver agreement compared with the WHO classification system, and that distinction between HPV-related and HPV-unrelated EA can be made with good reproducibility and excellent prediction of HPV status. WHO morphologic variants of HPV-related EA are poorly reproducible. Conversely, agreement is high among important high-risk HPV-unrelated subtypes. Thus, our results further support replacing the current WHO classification with the IECC.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaFemaleHumansObserver VariationPapillomavirus InfectionsPathology, ClinicalUterine Cervical NeoplasmsWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID29877920
PMCPMC6281796
OpenAlexW2805594491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.