OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the consistency of distinction between pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) and intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) and the hypothesis that guidelines for their distinction might be inadequate. METHODS: A group of 93 pancreas specimens from surgical resections or autopsies that contained lesions consistent with histopathological diagnoses of PanIN-1A, PanIN-1B, PanIN-2, or IPMN (adenoma or borderline) was collected. The classification of these neoplasms by 6 pathologists, 2 from Europe, 2 from Japan, and 2 from the United States, was compared. The pathologists initially used guidelines current in their practice and then reviewed 47 of the 93 specimens a second time using new consensus definitions and guidelines for PanIN and IPMN that were developed in 2003. RESULTS: The initial comparison showed frequent disagreement regarding both category and grade of the lesions. Agreement was greater for category than grade. In the second review, agreement among the 6 reviewers improved, remaining higher for category, although disagreements persisted for both category and grade. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the new definitions of PanIN and IPMN improve the consistency in classifying these lesions, but additional work is needed to further improve the reproducibility of their classification.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the consistency of distinction between pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) and intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) and the hypothesis that guidelines for their distinction might be inadequate. METHODS: A group of 93 pancreas specimens from surgical resections or autopsies that contained lesions consistent with histopathological diagnoses of PanIN-1A, PanIN-1B, PanIN-2, or IPMN (adenoma or borderline) was collected. The classification of these neoplasms by 6 pathologists, 2 from Europe, 2 from Japan, and 2 from the United States, was compared. The pathologists initially used guidelines current in their practice and then reviewed 47 of the 93 specimens a second time using new consensus definitions and guidelines for PanIN and IPMN that were developed in 2003. RESULTS: The initial comparison showed frequent disagreement regarding both category and grade of the lesions. Agreement was greater for category than grade. In the second review, agreement among the 6 reviewers improved, remaining higher for category, although disagreements persisted for both category and grade. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the new definitions of PanIN and IPMN improve the consistency in classifying these lesions, but additional work is needed to further improve the reproducibility of their classification.
Authors: Kimberly H Allison; Mara H Rendi; Sue Peacock; Tom Morgan; Joann G Elmore; Donald L Weaver Journal: Histopathology Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Kaye M Reid-Lombardo; Jennifer St Sauver; Zhuo Li; William A Ahrens; K Krishnan Unni; Florencia G Que Journal: Pancreas Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Seung-Mo Hong; David Kelly; Margaret Griffith; Noriyuki Omura; Ang Li; Chung-Pin Li; Ralph H Hruban; Michael Goggins Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Frank Schönleben; Wanglong Qiu; Helen E Remotti; Werner Hohenberger; Gloria H Su Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 3.445