ArticleHistopathology2026
High interobserver variability exists in grading appendiceal goblet cell adenocarcinoma using World Health Organization 5th edition criteria.
Article in Histopathology, 2026. 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.
- Tumorigenesis of well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcoma: 12q amplicon architecture, oncogenic cargo, and evolutionary progression.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsAppendiceal goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA) is an uncommon malignancy that has been described under various names and grading schemes. The 5th Edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Digestive System Tumours provides a three-tiered system for grading these neoplasms, but the reproducibility of this classification scheme has not been studied. METHODS AND
resultsWe scanned 58 H&E-stained slides from 20 GCA and circulated the whole-slide images among seven pathologists with interest in appendiceal pathology. They evaluated each slide for the presence of 15 histological patterns defined by the WHO as criteria for low-grade (n = 5) and high-grade (n = 10) GCA. Cases were also evaluated for the presence of extracellular mucin. Participants also reported the percentage of high-grade features in each whole slide image and each case. Interobserver variability was assessed statistically. All seven observers agreed on the WHO grade for four of the 20 cases (20%; one grade 1, three grade 3). Using Fleiss's kappa statistic, overall agreement for cases was fair at 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.44), and pairwise agreement between observers ranged from 0.00 to 0.82 (median = 0.13). Gwet's agreement coefficient ranged from 0.10 to 0.87 (median = 0.28), while overall agreement was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.17-0.54). There was significant variability with respect to assessing the presence of individual features. The best agreement was seen for extracellular mucin (neutral feature, κ = 0.43) and tumour sheets (high-grade feature, κ = 0.41), whereas the worst agreement was seen for mild architectural disarray/tubular fusion (low-grade feature, κ = 0.05) and necrosis (high-grade feature, κ = 0.07).
conclusionsWe conclude that interobserver agreement for grading GCA using the three-tiered WHO 5th Edition classification system is fair at best. A validated two-tiered system (i.e. low- versus high-grade) may be more reproducible.
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.