Estimating Tumor Proportion in Smear Slides for Reliable Molecular Analysis.

IF 2.1 Q4 PATHOLOGY
Cisel Aydin Mericoz, Ibrahim Kulac, Pinar Firat
{"title":"Estimating Tumor Proportion in Smear Slides for Reliable Molecular Analysis.","authors":"Cisel Aydin Mericoz, Ibrahim Kulac, Pinar Firat","doi":"10.5146/tjpath.2025.13923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The use of molecular pathology is critical in diagnostics and theranostics. Today, cytological smears are utilized for molecular testing more often than ever. Accurate tumor cell percentage estimation is essential for reliable molecular testing, but its consistency remains uncertain. This study evaluates the reliability of tumor cell percentage estimations among an expert cytopathologist, a molecular cytopathologist, and a molecular pathologist.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Digital images from May-Grünwald-Giemsa (MGG)-stained smear slides of ten EBUS-guided mediastinal lymph node samples were selected. Five regions per slide were evaluated (50 areas from 10 patients). Three pathologists independently estimated tumor cell percentages using predefined categories (0-10%, 11-20%, 21-50%, etc.). Cells were also counted manually as the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The molecular cytopathologist (Observer 1 -) showed the highest consistency (Kappa = 0.69), followed by the expert cytopathologist (Observer 3 -, Kappa = 0.64), both demonstrating substantial agreement with the gold standard. The molecular pathologist (Observer 2 -) displayed moderate consistency (Kappa = 0.52). Agreement was most significant in the 71-100% category, aligning in over 95% of cases. The lowest value occurred in the 11-20% category. In this category, tumor proportions were frequently overestimated compared to the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Variability in tumor percentage estimations shows the need for standardized protocols and training. Substantial agreement was reached in specific categories. However, discrepancies in borderline cases highlight the importance of accurate assessments. More research is needed to improve estimation methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":45415,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Pathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2025.13923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The use of molecular pathology is critical in diagnostics and theranostics. Today, cytological smears are utilized for molecular testing more often than ever. Accurate tumor cell percentage estimation is essential for reliable molecular testing, but its consistency remains uncertain. This study evaluates the reliability of tumor cell percentage estimations among an expert cytopathologist, a molecular cytopathologist, and a molecular pathologist.

Material and methods: Digital images from May-Grünwald-Giemsa (MGG)-stained smear slides of ten EBUS-guided mediastinal lymph node samples were selected. Five regions per slide were evaluated (50 areas from 10 patients). Three pathologists independently estimated tumor cell percentages using predefined categories (0-10%, 11-20%, 21-50%, etc.). Cells were also counted manually as the gold standard.

Results: The molecular cytopathologist (Observer 1 -) showed the highest consistency (Kappa = 0.69), followed by the expert cytopathologist (Observer 3 -, Kappa = 0.64), both demonstrating substantial agreement with the gold standard. The molecular pathologist (Observer 2 -) displayed moderate consistency (Kappa = 0.52). Agreement was most significant in the 71-100% category, aligning in over 95% of cases. The lowest value occurred in the 11-20% category. In this category, tumor proportions were frequently overestimated compared to the gold standard.

Conclusion: Variability in tumor percentage estimations shows the need for standardized protocols and training. Substantial agreement was reached in specific categories. However, discrepancies in borderline cases highlight the importance of accurate assessments. More research is needed to improve estimation methods.

估计肿瘤比例在涂片可靠的分子分析。
目的:分子病理学的应用在诊断和治疗中具有重要意义。今天,细胞学涂片比以往任何时候都更常用于分子检测。准确的肿瘤细胞百分比估计对于可靠的分子检测至关重要,但其一致性仍不确定。本研究评估了专家细胞病理学家、分子细胞病理学家和分子病理学家对肿瘤细胞百分比估计的可靠性。材料和方法:选择10个ebus引导的纵隔淋巴结样本的may - gr nwald- giemsa (MGG)染色涂片。每张幻灯片评估5个区域(来自10名患者的50个区域)。三位病理学家使用预定义的分类(0-10%,11-20%,21-50%等)独立估计肿瘤细胞百分比。细胞也被手工计数作为金标准。结果:分子细胞病理学家(观察者1 -)表现出最高的一致性(Kappa = 0.69),其次是专家细胞病理学家(观察者3 -,Kappa = 0.64),两者都表现出与金标准的基本一致。分子病理学(观察者2 -)显示中等一致性(Kappa = 0.52)。一致性在71-100%类别中最为显著,超过95%的案例一致。最低值出现在11-20%的类别。在这个类别中,与金标准相比,肿瘤比例经常被高估。结论:肿瘤百分比估计的可变性表明需要标准化的方案和培训。在具体类别上达成了实质性协议。然而,边缘病例的差异突出了准确评估的重要性。需要更多的研究来改进估计方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信