2023
Multi-institutional Assessment of Pathologist Scoring HER2 Immunohistochemistry
Robbins C, Fernandez A, Han G, Wong S, Harigopal M, Podoll M, Singh K, Ly A, Kuba M, Wen H, Sanders M, Brock J, Wei S, Fadare O, Hanley K, Jorns J, Snir O, Yoon E, Rabe K, Soong T, Reisenbichler E, Rimm D. Multi-institutional Assessment of Pathologist Scoring HER2 Immunohistochemistry. Modern Pathology 2023, 36: 100032. PMID: 36788069, PMCID: PMC10278086, DOI: 10.1016/j.modpat.2022.100032.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsOverall percent agreementHuman epidermal growth factor 2HER2 IHCReal-world settingEpidermal growth factor 2HER2-negative statusBreast cancer biopsiesCompanion diagnostic testsMulti-institutional assessmentGrowth factor 2Breast cancerImmunohistochemistry assaysCancer biopsiesHER2 immunohistochemistryPathologist concordanceIHCClinical standardsPercent agreementDiagnostic testsSubstantial discordanceERBB2 geneInterrater reliabilityPathologistsFactor 2Concordance
2022
Concordance in Breast Cancer Grading by Artificial Intelligence on Whole Slide Images Compares With a Multi-Institutional Cohort of Breast Pathologists.
Mantrala S, Ginter PS, Mitkari A, Joshi S, Prabhala H, Ramachandra V, Kini L, Idress R, D'Alfonso TM, Fineberg S, Jaffer S, Sattar AK, Chagpar AB, Wilson P, Singh K, Harigopal M, Koka D. Concordance in Breast Cancer Grading by Artificial Intelligence on Whole Slide Images Compares With a Multi-Institutional Cohort of Breast Pathologists. Archives Of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 2022, 146: 1369-1377. PMID: 35271701, DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2021-0299-oa.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchMeSH KeywordsArtificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansObserver VariationPathologistsReproducibility of ResultsConceptsWhole slide imagingArtificial intelligenceNottingham grading systemDigital whole slide imagingVirtual microscopyBreast cancer gradingWhole slide imagesDeep learningAI methodologiesExplainable methodsDigital pathologySlide imagesCancer gradingMulti-institutional groupIntelligenceLearningImagesImportant criteriaFrameworkAdvent
2020
Histologic grading of breast carcinoma: a multi-institution study of interobserver variation using virtual microscopy
Ginter PS, Idress R, D’Alfonso T, Fineberg S, Jaffer S, Sattar AK, Chagpar A, Wilson P, Harigopal M. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma: a multi-institution study of interobserver variation using virtual microscopy. Modern Pathology 2020, 34: 701-709. PMID: 33077923, PMCID: PMC7987728, DOI: 10.1038/s41379-020-00698-2.Peer-Reviewed Original Research
2019
Interobserver variability in breast carcinoma grading results in prognostic stage differences
Rabe K, Snir OL, Bossuyt V, Harigopal M, Celli R, Reisenbichler ES. Interobserver variability in breast carcinoma grading results in prognostic stage differences. Human Pathology 2019, 94: 51-57. PMID: 31655171, DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2019.09.006.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsPathologic prognostic stagePrognostic stageStage II carcinomaInterobserver variabilityIntra-observer variabilityGood intra-observer variabilityStage IABreast pathologistsConsecutive casesTumor gradeBreast carcinomaTumor gradingDiscordant gradesAJCC cancerDiscordant casesCarcinoma gradeInterobserver agreementGrading criteriaPathologistsCarcinomaComplete concordanceGradeOverall gradeGrading results