Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Validation of grading of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma by digital pathology for routine diagnosis

  • Richard Colling*
  • , Hayleigh Colling
  • , Lisa Browning
  • , Clare Verrill
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Oxford
  • Department of Cellular Pathology
  • John Radcliffe Hospital
  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Pathological grading of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma has a direct impact upon management. This study evaluates the reproducibility of grading these tumours on glass slides and digital pathology. Methods: Forty eight non-invasive urothelial bladder carcinomas were graded by three uropathologists on glass and on a digital platform using the 1973 WHO and 2004 ISUP/WHO systems. Results: Consensus grades for glass and digital grading gave Cohen’s kappa scores of 0.78 (2004) and 0.82 (1973). Of 142 decisions made on the key therapeutic borderline of low grade versus high grade urothelial carcinoma (2004) by the three pathologists, 85% were in agreement. For the 1973 grading system, agreement overall was 90%. Conclusions: Agreement on grading on glass slide and digital screen assessment is similar or in some cases improved, suggesting at least non-inferiority of DP for grading of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma.

Original languageEnglish
Article number995
JournalBMC Cancer
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2021
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Genetics
  • Cancer Research

Keywords

  • Bladder
  • Carcinoma
  • Digital pathology
  • Grade
  • Urothelial

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Validation of grading of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma by digital pathology for routine diagnosis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this