Literature DB >> 11331953

Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation.

E Montgomery1, M P Bronner, J R Goldblum, J K Greenson, M M Haber, J Hart, L W Lamps, G Y Lauwers, A J Lazenby, D N Lewin, M E Robert, A Y Toledano, Y Shyr, K Washington.   

Abstract

Morphologic assessment of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus, despite limitations, remains the basis of treatment. We rigorously tested modified 1988 criteria, assessing intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. Participants submitted slides of Barrett mucosa negative (BE) and indefinite (IND) for dysplasia, with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and with carcinoma. Two hundred fifty slides were divided into 2 groups. The first 125 slides were reviewed, without knowledge of the prior diagnoses, on 2 occasions by 12 gastrointestinal pathologists without prior discussion of criteria. Results were analyzed by kappa statistics, which correct for agreement by chance. A consensus meeting was then held, establishing, by group review of the index 125 slides, the criteria outlined herein. The second 125-slide set was then reviewed twice by each of the same 12 pathologists, and follow-up kappa statistics were calculated. When statistical analysis was performed using 2 broad diagnostic categories (BE, IND, and LG v HG and carcinoma), intraobserver agreement was near perfect both before and after the consensus meeting (mean kappa = 0.82 and 0.80). Interobserver agreement was substantial (kappa = 0.66) and improved after the consensus meeting (kappa = 0.70; P =.02). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 clinically relevant separations (BE; IND and LGD; HGD; carcinoma), mean intraobserver kappa improved from 0.64 to 0.68 (both substantial) after the consensus meeting, and mean interobserver kappa improved from 0.43 to 0.46 (both moderate agreement). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 diagnostic categories that required distinction between LGD and IND (BE; IND; LGD; HGD and carcinoma), the pre-consensus meeting mean intraobserver kappa was 0.60 (substantial agreement), improving to 0.65 after the meeting (P <.05). Interobserver agreement was poorer, with premeeting and postmeeting mean values unchanged (kappa = 0.43 at both times). Interobserver agreement was substantial for HGD/carcinoma (kappa = 0.65), moderate to substantial for BE (kappa = 0.58), fair for LGD (kappa = 0.32), and slight for IND (kappa = 0.15). The intraobserver reproducibility for the diagnosis of dysplasia in BE was substantial. Interobserver reproducibility was substantial at the ends of the spectrum (BE and HG/carcinoma) but slight for IND. Both intraobserver and interobserver variation improved overall after the application of a modified grading system developed at a consensus conference but not in separation of BE, IND, and LGD. The criteria used by the group are presented. HUM PATHOL 32:368-978. Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11331953     DOI: 10.1053/hupa.2001.23510

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  200 in total

1.  Observer variation in the diagnosis of superficial oesophageal adenocarcinoma: another spanner in the works?

Authors:  D Alderson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Ablative mucosectomy is the procedure of choice to prevent Barrett's cancer.

Authors:  H Barr
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Routine morphometrical analysis can improve reproducibility of dysplasia grade in Barrett's oesophagus surveillance biopsies.

Authors:  J P A Baak; F J W ten Kate; G J A Offerhaus; J J van Lanschot; G A Meijer
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Biomarkers and molecular diagnosis of gastrointestinal and pancreatic neoplasms.

Authors:  Shelby D Melton; Robert M Genta; Rhonda F Souza
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 5.  Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia: focus on current treatment options.

Authors:  Leonidas Lekakos; Nikolaos P Karidis; Dimitrios Dimitroulis; Christos Tsigris; Gregory Kouraklis; Nikolaos Nikiteas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Medical and endoscopic management of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  K K Wang; J M Tian; E Gorospe; J Penfield; G Prasad; T Goddard; M Wongkeesong; N S Buttar; L Lutzke; S Krishnadath
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 3.429

Review 7.  Report of an Amsterdam working group on Barrett esophagus.

Authors:  G J A Offerhaus; P Correa; S van Eeden; K Geboes; P Drillenburg; M Vieth; M L van Velthuysen; H Watanabe; P Sipponen; F J W ten Kate; F T Bosman; A Bosma; A Ristimaki; H van Dekken; R Riddell; G N J Tytgat
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2003-09-27       Impact factor: 4.064

8.  Can extent of high grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus predict the presence of adenocarcinoma at oesophagectomy?

Authors:  M S Dar; J R Goldblum; T W Rice; G W Falk
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  Barrett's oesophagus: time for consensus.

Authors:  G Faller; M Stolte
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2003-10-09       Impact factor: 4.064

10.  What is the best management strategy for high grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus? A cost effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  N J Shaheen; J M Inadomi; B F Overholt; P Sharma
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 23.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.