Validation of grading of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma by digital pathology for routine diagnosis.

Richard Colling, Hayleigh Colling, Lisa Browning, Clare Verrill

Abstract readValidation Study

In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Department Wide Validation in Digital Pathology-Experience from an Academic Teaching Hospital Using the UK Royal College of Pathologists' Guidance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Richard CollingNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. richard.colling@nds.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6344-9081

Hayleigh CollingNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.

Lisa BrowningDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.

Clare VerrillNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.

Funding

UK Research & Innovation (Innovate UK) PathLAKE Grant 18181

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathological grading of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma has a direct impact upon management. This study evaluates the reproducibility of grading these tumours on glass slides and digital pathology.

methodsForty eight non-invasive urothelial bladder carcinomas were graded by three uropathologists on glass and on a digital platform using the 1973 WHO and 2004 ISUP/WHO systems.

resultsConsensus grades for glass and digital grading gave Cohen's kappa scores of 0.78 (2004) and 0.82 (1973). Of 142 decisions made on the key therapeutic borderline of low grade versus high grade urothelial carcinoma (2004) by the three pathologists, 85% were in agreement. For the 1973 grading system, agreement overall was 90%.

conclusionsAgreement on grading on glass slide and digital screen assessment is similar or in some cases improved, suggesting at least non-inferiority of DP for grading of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma.

Indexed as

Observer VariationCarcinoma, PapillaryDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansNeoplasm GradingPathologistsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBladderCarcinomaDigital pathologyGradeUrothelial

Identifiers

PMID34488682

DOI10.1186/s12885-021-08698-4

PMCPMC8420048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.