The Importance of Cytologic Intrarater and Interrater Reproducibility: the Case of Ductal Lavage

  1. Kala Visvanathan1,2,4,
  2. Deborah Santor1,
  3. Syed Z. Ali4,
  4. In Soon Hong5,
  5. Nancy E. Davidson2,4 and
  6. Kathy J. Helzlsouer1,3
  1. 1The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; 2Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center; and 3Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland; 4Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; and 5Howard University, Washington, District of Columbia
  1. Requests for reprints:
    Kala Visvanathan, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205. Phone: 410-614-1112; Fax: 410-614-2632. E-mail: kvisvana{at}jhsph.edu

Abstract

The reproducibility of a test result is a critical component of its clinical utility. Little information is available concerning the intrarater reproducibility of cytologic assessments. This study evaluated the reproducibility of cytologic interpretation of epithelial cells obtained from ductal lavage (DL), a minimally invasive method used to obtain sample cells from breast tissue. Two cytospin slides were made for each duct sampled. Slides with <10 cells were considered inadequate to make a diagnosis; the remaining slides were classified into mildly atypical, markedly atypical, and malignant cells. Each pair of slides were classified by the more serious diagnosis. DL samples from 100 ducts were independently blind-reviewed by two experienced cytopathologists. All abnormal slides and a random sample of normal slides and slides identified as inadequate for diagnosis (n = 43) were re-reviewed. The κ for intrarater agreement was 0.59 ± 0.10 for cytopathologist 1 and 0.33 ± 0.08 for cytopathologist 2. The κ for interrater agreement of slides from 100 ducts was 0.46 ± 0.07. The interrater agreement of the slides that were re-reviewed was κ = 0.27 ± 0.09. Fair to moderate intrarater and interrater agreement of DL cytology was observed. Low intrarater and interrater cytologic consistency may compromise the interpretation of clinical studies of DL. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(12):2553–6)

Footnotes

  • Grant support: Avon Foundation, The National Institute of Health (5U01CA/ES62988), and The Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund. Dr. Visvanathan is a recipient of a Breast Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Career Development Award (NIH CA 88843), an American Society of Clinical Oncology Career Development Award (ASCO), and KO7 Preventive Oncology Academic Award (NCI CA11948).

  • The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Accepted October 5, 2006.
    • Received July 12, 2006.
    • Revision received September 18, 2006.
« Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents