Confirmation of endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia (ESEM) requires histology, but confusion in the histological definition of columnar-lined esophagus (CLE) is a longstanding problem. The aim of this study is to evaluate interpathologist variability in the interpretation of CLE. Thirty pathologists were invited to review three ten-case sets of CLE biopsies. In the first set, the cases were provided with descriptive endoscopy only; in the second and the third sets, ESEM extent using Prague criteria was provided. Moreover, participants were required to refer to a diagnostic chart for evaluation of the third set. Agreement was statistically assessed using Randolph’s free-marginal multirater kappa. While substantial agreement in recognizing columnar epithelium (K = 0.76) was recorded, the overall concordance in clinico-pathological diagnosis was low (K = 0.38). The overall concordance rate improved from the first (K = 0.27) to the second (K = 0.40) and third step (K = 0.46). Agreement was substantial when diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus (BE) with intestinal metaplasia or inlet patch (K = 0.65 and K = 0.89), respectively, in the third step, while major problems in interpretation of CLE were observed when only cardia/cardia-oxyntic atrophic-type epithelium was present (K = 0.05–0.29). In conclusion, precise endoscopic description and the use of a diagnostic chart increased consistency in CLE interpretation of esophageal biopsies. Agreement was substantial for some diagnostic categories (BE with intestinal metaplasia and inlet patch) with a well-defined clinical profile. Interpretation of cases with cardia/cardia-oxyntic atrophic-type epithelium, with or without ESEM, was least consistent, which reflects lack of clarity of definition and results in variable management of this entity.

Interobserver reproducibility in pathologist interpretation of columnar-lined esophagus

MASTRACCI, LUCA;FIOCCA, ROBERTO;GRILLO, FEDERICA
2016

Abstract

Confirmation of endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia (ESEM) requires histology, but confusion in the histological definition of columnar-lined esophagus (CLE) is a longstanding problem. The aim of this study is to evaluate interpathologist variability in the interpretation of CLE. Thirty pathologists were invited to review three ten-case sets of CLE biopsies. In the first set, the cases were provided with descriptive endoscopy only; in the second and the third sets, ESEM extent using Prague criteria was provided. Moreover, participants were required to refer to a diagnostic chart for evaluation of the third set. Agreement was statistically assessed using Randolph’s free-marginal multirater kappa. While substantial agreement in recognizing columnar epithelium (K = 0.76) was recorded, the overall concordance in clinico-pathological diagnosis was low (K = 0.38). The overall concordance rate improved from the first (K = 0.27) to the second (K = 0.40) and third step (K = 0.46). Agreement was substantial when diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus (BE) with intestinal metaplasia or inlet patch (K = 0.65 and K = 0.89), respectively, in the third step, while major problems in interpretation of CLE were observed when only cardia/cardia-oxyntic atrophic-type epithelium was present (K = 0.05–0.29). In conclusion, precise endoscopic description and the use of a diagnostic chart increased consistency in CLE interpretation of esophageal biopsies. Agreement was substantial for some diagnostic categories (BE with intestinal metaplasia and inlet patch) with a well-defined clinical profile. Interpretation of cases with cardia/cardia-oxyntic atrophic-type epithelium, with or without ESEM, was least consistent, which reflects lack of clarity of definition and results in variable management of this entity.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11567/844217
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact