Blood online
Home About Blood Authors Subscriptions Permission Advertising Public Access contact us
 

 
Advanced
Current Issue
First Edition
Future Articles
Archives
Submit to Blood
Search
American Society of Hematology
Meeting Abstracts
Email Alerts
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Browman, G. P.
Right arrow Articles by Soamboonsrup, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Browman, G. P.
Right arrow Articles by Soamboonsrup, P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

arrow to previous article Previous Article  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Article next article arrow

The contribution of cytochemistry and immunophenotyping to the reproducibility of the FAB classification in acute leukemia

GP Browman, PB Neame and P Soamboonsrup

Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of the FAB classification was assessed for two independent observers whose decisions are acted on for treatment of patients with acute leukemia in the Hamilton region. Intraobserver reproducibility was assessed for Wright-stained preparations that were examined independently on two consecutive occasions at least 2 weeks apart. A third reading was performed with Wright stain and cytochemical data, and the fourth reading was done with addition of immunophenotype data. Concordance was calculated using a statistic that corrects for chance-expected agreement (k), and a weighted statistic that takes into account the seriousness of disagreements was used. Samples were available for morphological and cytochemical assessment on 105 patients, and immunophenotype data were available on 93 specimens. Intraobserver concordance was 64.8% and 70.5% for observers A and B, respectively, with kappa values of .56 and .62. There were 37 discordant readings for observer A and 31 for observer B, with each observer discordant between lymphocytic:nonlymphocytic phenotypes in ten cases. Concordance between observers was 63% (k = .54) and 72% (k = .65) for each of two separate readings for Wright-stained preparations only. Reproducibility improved to 89% (k = .86) when cytochemistry was added. When immunophenotype information was provided in addition to Wright-stained and cytochemical preparations, the agreement was 99%. Lymphocytic:nonlymphocytic discordance between observers occurred on nine occasions when Wright- stained preparations only were available and four times when cytochemistry was added; it did not occur with immunophenotyping. The study suggests that immunophenotyping, when added to morphological assessment of acute leukemia, may contribute substantially to agreement between observers.

Volume 68, Issue 4, pp. 900-905, 10/01/1986
Copyright © 1986 by The American Society of Hematology


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




 click for free articles
home about blood authors subscriptions permissions advertising public access contact us
  Copyright © 1986 by American Society of Hematology         Online ISSN: 1528-0020