84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16927641)
1. Interobserver variation in breast cancer grading: a statistical modeling approach.
Chowdhury N; Pai MR; Lobo FD; Kini H; Varghese R
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 2006 Aug; 28(4):213-8. PubMed ID: 16927641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quality control for histological grading in breast cancer: an Italian experience.
Italian Network for Quality Assurance of Tumour Biomarkers (INQAT) Group
Pathologica; 2005 Feb; 97(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 15918409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Impact of an increase in grading categories and double reporting on the reliability of breast cancer grade.
Chowdhury N; Pai MR; Lobo FD; Kini H; Varghese R
APMIS; 2007 Apr; 115(4):360-6. PubMed ID: 17504304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Histologic grading of invasive lobular carcinoma: does use of a 2-tiered nuclear grading system improve interobserver variability?
Adams AL; Chhieng DC; Bell WC; Winokur T; Hameed O
Ann Diagn Pathol; 2009 Aug; 13(4):223-5. PubMed ID: 19608079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma.
Frierson HF; Wolber RA; Berean KW; Franquemont DW; Gaffey MJ; Boyd JC; Wilbur DC
Am J Clin Pathol; 1995 Feb; 103(2):195-8. PubMed ID: 7856562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interobserver agreement of the Nottingham histologic grading scheme for infiltrating duct carcinoma breast.
Sikka M; Agarwal S; Bhatia A
Indian J Cancer; 1999; 36(2-4):149-53. PubMed ID: 10921219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. ONEST (Observers Needed to Evaluate Subjective Tests) suggests four or more observers for a reliable assessment of the consistency of histological grading of invasive breast carcinoma: A reproducibility study with a retrospective view on previous studies.
Cserni B; Bori R; Csörgő E; Oláh-Németh O; Pancsa T; Sejben A; Sejben I; Vörös A; Zombori T; Nyári T; Cserni G
Pathol Res Pract; 2022 Jan; 229():153718. PubMed ID: 34920295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement.
Robbins P; Pinder S; de Klerk N; Dawkins H; Harvey J; Sterrett G; Ellis I; Elston C
Hum Pathol; 1995 Aug; 26(8):873-9. PubMed ID: 7635449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interobserver Reproducibility of Histological Grading of Canine Simple Mammary Carcinomas.
Santos M; Correia-Gomes C; Santos A; de Matos A; Dias-Pereira P; Lopes C
J Comp Pathol; 2015 Jul; 153(1):22-7. PubMed ID: 25979682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast cancer histologic grading using digital microscopy: concordance and outcome association.
Rakha EA; Aleskandarani M; Toss MS; Green AR; Ball G; Ellis IO; Dalton LW
J Clin Pathol; 2018 Aug; 71(8):680-686. PubMed ID: 29535212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast carcinoma. Correlations between visual diagnostic criteria for histologic grading and features of image analysis.
Tuczek HV; Fritz P; Schwarzmann P; Wu X; Mähner G
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1996 Dec; 18(6):481-93. PubMed ID: 8978872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Histologic grading of breast cancer: linkage of patient outcome with level of pathologist agreement.
Dalton LW; Pinder SE; Elston CE; Ellis IO; Page DL; Dupont WD; Blamey RW
Mod Pathol; 2000 Jul; 13(7):730-5. PubMed ID: 10912931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Subjective breast cancer grading. Analyses of reproducibility after application of Bayesian belief networks.
Kronqvist P; Montironi R; Kuopio T; Collan YU
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1997 Oct; 19(5):423-9. PubMed ID: 9349902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Modelling errors in scoring the darkness of staining.
Hutchinson TP; Gudlaugsdottir S
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 2002 Apr; 24(2):121-4. PubMed ID: 12026050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A single pathological grading system for breast carcinoma should be adopted in Sri Lanka.
de Silva MV; Tilakaratna AD; Rodrigo T
Ceylon Med J; 1998 Dec; 43(4):232-4. PubMed ID: 10355178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Scoring nuclear pleomorphism in breast cancer.
Dunne B; Going JJ
Histopathology; 2001 Sep; 39(3):259-65. PubMed ID: 11532036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Principal component analysis. A factor analytical technique for the determination of interobserver variation in histomorphologic tumor grading.
Sun DQ; Feng CH; Böcking A; Biesterfeld S
Anticancer Res; 1994; 14(4A):1525-8. PubMed ID: 7979180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of the interobserver agreement in the number of mitotic figures of breast carcinoma as simulation of quality monitoring in the Japan National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (NSAS-BC) protocol.
Tsuda H; Akiyama F; Kurosumi M; Sakamoto G; Yamashiro K; Oyama T; Hasebe T; Kameyama K; Hasegawa T; Umemura S; Honma K; Ozawa T; Sasaki K; Morino H; Ohsumi S
Jpn J Cancer Res; 2000 Apr; 91(4):451-7. PubMed ID: 10804295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Histologic grading in breast cancer--reproducibility between seven pathologic departments. South Sweden Breast Cancer Group.
Boiesen P; Bendahl PO; Anagnostaki L; Domanski H; Holm E; Idvall I; Johansson S; Ljungberg O; Ringberg A; Ostberg G; Fernö M
Acta Oncol; 2000; 39(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 10752652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Classification and grading of invasive breast carcinoma.
Elston CW
Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol; 2005; 89():35-44. PubMed ID: 18035670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
