ArticleCytoJournal2025
Interobserver concordance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte assessment in triple-negative breast carcinoma; tissue microarray versus whole sections.
Article in CytoJournal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) assessment is recognized as an important prognostic and therapeutic biomarker in several tumors, including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). TILs face several challenges, including low to intermediate interobserver concordance. The use of tissue microarray (TMA) in TIL assessment and its relationship/concordance with whole sections (WS) has been studied only rarely. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reproducibility of TIL assessment in TNBC among various users and to compare TIL assessment using TMA versus whole tissue sections (WS). Material and Methods: Hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections of TMAs were prepared and assessed for quality and adequacy. Corresponding WS slides for all cases were retrieved and independently scored for TILs by one junior and two senior pathologists. The assessment followed the guidelines of the International TILs Working Group. TIL scores were categorized into three groups: Low: <20%; intermediate: 20-49%; and high: ≥50%. A total of 100 cases were collected; however, 76 cases were evaluable after excluding inadequate samples or cases with missing information. Results: Fleiss' kappa was used to assess interobserver agreement among the three raters for both WS and TMA datasets. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the degree of agreement among the three raters for continuous variables before categorization, and Cohen's kappa was applied to both WS and TMA datasets to assess interobserver agreement between any two raters. The interobserver agreement for WS analysis (Cohen's kappa) was fair, while for TMA, it was moderate. The ICC also showed moderate agreement. Cohen's kappa for TMA versus WS for each of the three observers ranged from fair to strong. Fleiss' kappa showed fair agreement for WS versus TMA. Conclusion: Interobserver variability in TIL scoring remains a challenge. TMAs improve consistency but at the cost of reduced correlation with WS assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.