Quantitation of borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours
Discrimination between borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours is a well‐known diagnostic problem. In order to obtain objective reproducible and consistent features for differential diagnosis, 32 quantitative microscopical features were assessed in 10 benign, 10 borderline and 22 malignant...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Histopathology 1981-07, Vol.5 (4), p.353-360 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 360 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 353 |
container_title | Histopathology |
container_volume | 5 |
creator | BAAK, J. P. A. BLANCO, A. AGRAFOJO KURVER, P. H. J. LANGLEY, F. A. BOON, M. E. LINDEMAN, J. OVERDIEP, S. H. NIEUWLAAT, A. BREKELMANS, E. |
description | Discrimination between borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours is a well‐known diagnostic problem. In order to obtain objective reproducible and consistent features for differential diagnosis, 32 quantitative microscopical features were assessed in 10 benign, 10 borderline and 22 malignant mucinous ovarian tumours. There were many significant differences between the three groups, but using multivariate analysis there was 93% agreement between the histopathological assessment of these sections and the qualitative analyses. The following features were useful in the quantitative classification: the mean area, the mean perimeter and the mean of the short axis of the nucleus; the volume percentage of the epithelium; the mitotic activity. In three cases, there was a difference between the original histopathological and computer classification. It was debatable whether the original diagnosis was correct, and therefore, all the cases were independently reassessed blind by three pathologists. Their diagnoses lend strong support to the computer classification in two of the three cases. The computer classification seems therefore to be even better than 93%. The present quantitative techniques are inexpensive, relatively easy to use, and, we believe, have a useful place in diagnostic histopathology. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1981.tb01797.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73623056</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>73623056</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4073-3797d98cb868da55ae19e465e4f658811f1827f437df6094a8aeee901a304ffe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkM1KAzEURoMoWquPIAwu3M2YTCbJxIUgYluxKEVFdyGduZHU-dFkRtu3N6Wle7O5i--7J5eD0DnBCQnvcpEQylmcMiYTInOSdHNMhBTJcg8NdtE-GmCKZYwJF0fo2PsFDi2apofoUKSCYSIH6GbW66azne5s20StieatK8FVtoFIN2VU68p-NKES1X1hm7b3UfujndVN1PV12zt_gg6MrjycbucQvY7uXm4n8fRpfH97M42LDAsa03BfKfNinvO81IxpIBIyziAznOU5IYbkqTAZFaXhWGY61wAgMdEUZ8YAHaKLDffLtd89-E7V1hdQVbqBcJYSlKcUMx6KV5ti4VrvHRj15Wyt3UoRrNb-1EKtJam1JLX2p7b-1DIsn21_6ec1lLvVrbCQX2_yX1vB6h9kNbl_powGQLwBWN_BcgfQ7lNxQQVTb49j9ZDyEZ7JsXqnf0lgj5A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73623056</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantitation of borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>BAAK, J. P. A. ; BLANCO, A. AGRAFOJO ; KURVER, P. H. J. ; LANGLEY, F. A. ; BOON, M. E. ; LINDEMAN, J. ; OVERDIEP, S. H. ; NIEUWLAAT, A. ; BREKELMANS, E.</creator><creatorcontrib>BAAK, J. P. A. ; BLANCO, A. AGRAFOJO ; KURVER, P. H. J. ; LANGLEY, F. A. ; BOON, M. E. ; LINDEMAN, J. ; OVERDIEP, S. H. ; NIEUWLAAT, A. ; BREKELMANS, E.</creatorcontrib><description>Discrimination between borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours is a well‐known diagnostic problem. In order to obtain objective reproducible and consistent features for differential diagnosis, 32 quantitative microscopical features were assessed in 10 benign, 10 borderline and 22 malignant mucinous ovarian tumours. There were many significant differences between the three groups, but using multivariate analysis there was 93% agreement between the histopathological assessment of these sections and the qualitative analyses. The following features were useful in the quantitative classification: the mean area, the mean perimeter and the mean of the short axis of the nucleus; the volume percentage of the epithelium; the mitotic activity. In three cases, there was a difference between the original histopathological and computer classification. It was debatable whether the original diagnosis was correct, and therefore, all the cases were independently reassessed blind by three pathologists. Their diagnoses lend strong support to the computer classification in two of the three cases. The computer classification seems therefore to be even better than 93%. The present quantitative techniques are inexpensive, relatively easy to use, and, we believe, have a useful place in diagnostic histopathology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0309-0167</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2559</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1981.tb01797.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7275019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>borderline tumours ; Cell Nucleus - pathology ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Epithelium - pathology ; Female ; Humans ; Microcomputers ; Mitosis ; mucinous tumours ; Ovarian Neoplasms - classification ; Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis ; ovary ; quantitative microscopy</subject><ispartof>Histopathology, 1981-07, Vol.5 (4), p.353-360</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4073-3797d98cb868da55ae19e465e4f658811f1827f437df6094a8aeee901a304ffe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4073-3797d98cb868da55ae19e465e4f658811f1827f437df6094a8aeee901a304ffe3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2559.1981.tb01797.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2559.1981.tb01797.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7275019$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>BAAK, J. P. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BLANCO, A. AGRAFOJO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KURVER, P. H. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LANGLEY, F. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOON, M. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LINDEMAN, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OVERDIEP, S. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NIEUWLAAT, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BREKELMANS, E.</creatorcontrib><title>Quantitation of borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours</title><title>Histopathology</title><addtitle>Histopathology</addtitle><description>Discrimination between borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours is a well‐known diagnostic problem. In order to obtain objective reproducible and consistent features for differential diagnosis, 32 quantitative microscopical features were assessed in 10 benign, 10 borderline and 22 malignant mucinous ovarian tumours. There were many significant differences between the three groups, but using multivariate analysis there was 93% agreement between the histopathological assessment of these sections and the qualitative analyses. The following features were useful in the quantitative classification: the mean area, the mean perimeter and the mean of the short axis of the nucleus; the volume percentage of the epithelium; the mitotic activity. In three cases, there was a difference between the original histopathological and computer classification. It was debatable whether the original diagnosis was correct, and therefore, all the cases were independently reassessed blind by three pathologists. Their diagnoses lend strong support to the computer classification in two of the three cases. The computer classification seems therefore to be even better than 93%. The present quantitative techniques are inexpensive, relatively easy to use, and, we believe, have a useful place in diagnostic histopathology.</description><subject>borderline tumours</subject><subject>Cell Nucleus - pathology</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Epithelium - pathology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Microcomputers</subject><subject>Mitosis</subject><subject>mucinous tumours</subject><subject>Ovarian Neoplasms - classification</subject><subject>Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>ovary</subject><subject>quantitative microscopy</subject><issn>0309-0167</issn><issn>1365-2559</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1981</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkM1KAzEURoMoWquPIAwu3M2YTCbJxIUgYluxKEVFdyGduZHU-dFkRtu3N6Wle7O5i--7J5eD0DnBCQnvcpEQylmcMiYTInOSdHNMhBTJcg8NdtE-GmCKZYwJF0fo2PsFDi2apofoUKSCYSIH6GbW66azne5s20StieatK8FVtoFIN2VU68p-NKES1X1hm7b3UfujndVN1PV12zt_gg6MrjycbucQvY7uXm4n8fRpfH97M42LDAsa03BfKfNinvO81IxpIBIyziAznOU5IYbkqTAZFaXhWGY61wAgMdEUZ8YAHaKLDffLtd89-E7V1hdQVbqBcJYSlKcUMx6KV5ti4VrvHRj15Wyt3UoRrNb-1EKtJam1JLX2p7b-1DIsn21_6ec1lLvVrbCQX2_yX1vB6h9kNbl_powGQLwBWN_BcgfQ7lNxQQVTb49j9ZDyEZ7JsXqnf0lgj5A</recordid><startdate>198107</startdate><enddate>198107</enddate><creator>BAAK, J. P. A.</creator><creator>BLANCO, A. AGRAFOJO</creator><creator>KURVER, P. H. J.</creator><creator>LANGLEY, F. A.</creator><creator>BOON, M. E.</creator><creator>LINDEMAN, J.</creator><creator>OVERDIEP, S. H.</creator><creator>NIEUWLAAT, A.</creator><creator>BREKELMANS, E.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198107</creationdate><title>Quantitation of borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours</title><author>BAAK, J. P. A. ; BLANCO, A. AGRAFOJO ; KURVER, P. H. J. ; LANGLEY, F. A. ; BOON, M. E. ; LINDEMAN, J. ; OVERDIEP, S. H. ; NIEUWLAAT, A. ; BREKELMANS, E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4073-3797d98cb868da55ae19e465e4f658811f1827f437df6094a8aeee901a304ffe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1981</creationdate><topic>borderline tumours</topic><topic>Cell Nucleus - pathology</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Epithelium - pathology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Microcomputers</topic><topic>Mitosis</topic><topic>mucinous tumours</topic><topic>Ovarian Neoplasms - classification</topic><topic>Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>ovary</topic><topic>quantitative microscopy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BAAK, J. P. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BLANCO, A. AGRAFOJO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KURVER, P. H. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LANGLEY, F. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOON, M. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LINDEMAN, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OVERDIEP, S. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NIEUWLAAT, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BREKELMANS, E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Histopathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BAAK, J. P. A.</au><au>BLANCO, A. AGRAFOJO</au><au>KURVER, P. H. J.</au><au>LANGLEY, F. A.</au><au>BOON, M. E.</au><au>LINDEMAN, J.</au><au>OVERDIEP, S. H.</au><au>NIEUWLAAT, A.</au><au>BREKELMANS, E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantitation of borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours</atitle><jtitle>Histopathology</jtitle><addtitle>Histopathology</addtitle><date>1981-07</date><risdate>1981</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>353</spage><epage>360</epage><pages>353-360</pages><issn>0309-0167</issn><eissn>1365-2559</eissn><abstract>Discrimination between borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours is a well‐known diagnostic problem. In order to obtain objective reproducible and consistent features for differential diagnosis, 32 quantitative microscopical features were assessed in 10 benign, 10 borderline and 22 malignant mucinous ovarian tumours. There were many significant differences between the three groups, but using multivariate analysis there was 93% agreement between the histopathological assessment of these sections and the qualitative analyses. The following features were useful in the quantitative classification: the mean area, the mean perimeter and the mean of the short axis of the nucleus; the volume percentage of the epithelium; the mitotic activity. In three cases, there was a difference between the original histopathological and computer classification. It was debatable whether the original diagnosis was correct, and therefore, all the cases were independently reassessed blind by three pathologists. Their diagnoses lend strong support to the computer classification in two of the three cases. The computer classification seems therefore to be even better than 93%. The present quantitative techniques are inexpensive, relatively easy to use, and, we believe, have a useful place in diagnostic histopathology.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>7275019</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2559.1981.tb01797.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0309-0167 |
ispartof | Histopathology, 1981-07, Vol.5 (4), p.353-360 |
issn | 0309-0167 1365-2559 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73623056 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | borderline tumours Cell Nucleus - pathology Diagnosis, Differential Epithelium - pathology Female Humans Microcomputers Mitosis mucinous tumours Ovarian Neoplasms - classification Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis ovary quantitative microscopy |
title | Quantitation of borderline and malignant mucinous ovarian tumours |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T07%3A25%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantitation%20of%20borderline%20and%20malignant%20mucinous%20ovarian%20tumours&rft.jtitle=Histopathology&rft.au=BAAK,%20J.%20P.%20A.&rft.date=1981-07&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=353&rft.epage=360&rft.pages=353-360&rft.issn=0309-0167&rft.eissn=1365-2559&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1981.tb01797.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E73623056%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=73623056&rft_id=info:pmid/7275019&rfr_iscdi=true |