BACKGROUND: EMR of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related superficial neoplasms represents an efficacious staging modality. It also allows for better pathologic grading compared with mucosal biopsy specimens. However, the interobserver variation in the interpretation of EMR specimens has not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate consistency in the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia on EMR specimens. DESIGN: Nine pathologists reviewed 25 esophageal EMR specimens and corresponding biopsy specimens independently. Each pathologist classified the cases as either non-neoplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal adenocarcinoma, or invasive adenocarcinoma. Interobserver concordance for both specimens from EMRs and biopsies was measured by intraclass correlation and Kendall's coefficient of concordance. The proportion of agreement was also calculated for each specimen and compared for EMR and biopsy by using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. SETTING: Teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: Twenty-five patients who underwent EMR for BE-related neoplasia. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation and the Kendall's coefficient for the 25 biopsy specimens was 0.938 (95% CI 0.880-0.965) and 0.677, respectively; for the 25 EMRs, these were significantly improved, at 0.977 (95% CI 0.957-0.987) and 0.831, respectively. In addition, the proportion of agreement for EMR specimens was significantly better compared with biopsy specimens (P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement of BE-related neoplasia on EMR specimens is significantly higher compared with biopsy specimens. The results may relate to the larger tissue sampling compared with biopsy specimens and the ability to evaluate mucosal landmarks, such as double muscularis mucosae. Thus, we suggest that EMRs, in addition to being a staging and therapeutic procedure, improve diagnostic consistency.
BACKGROUND: EMR of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related superficial neoplasms represents an efficacious staging modality. It also allows for better pathologic grading compared with mucosal biopsy specimens. However, the interobserver variation in the interpretation of EMR specimens has not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate consistency in the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia on EMR specimens. DESIGN: Nine pathologists reviewed 25 esophageal EMR specimens and corresponding biopsy specimens independently. Each pathologist classified the cases as either non-neoplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal adenocarcinoma, or invasive adenocarcinoma. Interobserver concordance for both specimens from EMRs and biopsies was measured by intraclass correlation and Kendall's coefficient of concordance. The proportion of agreement was also calculated for each specimen and compared for EMR and biopsy by using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. SETTING: Teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: Twenty-five patients who underwent EMR for BE-related neoplasia. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation and the Kendall's coefficient for the 25 biopsy specimens was 0.938 (95% CI 0.880-0.965) and 0.677, respectively; for the 25 EMRs, these were significantly improved, at 0.977 (95% CI 0.957-0.987) and 0.831, respectively. In addition, the proportion of agreement for EMR specimens was significantly better compared with biopsy specimens (P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement of BE-related neoplasia on EMR specimens is significantly higher compared with biopsy specimens. The results may relate to the larger tissue sampling compared with biopsy specimens and the ability to evaluate mucosal landmarks, such as double muscularis mucosae. Thus, we suggest that EMRs, in addition to being a staging and therapeutic procedure, improve diagnostic consistency.
Authors: Cadman L Leggett; Jason T Lewis; Tsung Teh Wu; Cathy D Schleck; Alan R Zinsmeister; Kelly T Dunagan; Lori S Lutzke; Kenneth K Wang; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Cathy Bennett; Nimish Vakil; Jacques Bergman; Rebecca Harrison; Robert Odze; Michael Vieth; Scott Sanders; Laura Gay; Oliver Pech; Gaius Longcroft-Wheaton; Yvonne Romero; John Inadomi; Jan Tack; Douglas A Corley; Hendrik Manner; Susi Green; David Al Dulaimi; Haythem Ali; Bill Allum; Mark Anderson; Howard Curtis; Gary Falk; M Brian Fennerty; Grant Fullarton; Kausilia Krishnadath; Stephen J Meltzer; David Armstrong; Robert Ganz; Gianpaolo Cengia; James J Going; John Goldblum; Charles Gordon; Heike Grabsch; Chris Haigh; Michio Hongo; David Johnston; Ricky Forbes-Young; Elaine Kay; Philip Kaye; Toni Lerut; Laurence B Lovat; Lars Lundell; Philip Mairs; Tadakuza Shimoda; Stuart Spechler; Stephen Sontag; Peter Malfertheiner; Iain Murray; Manoj Nanji; David Poller; Krish Ragunath; Jaroslaw Regula; Renzo Cestari; Neil Shepherd; Rajvinder Singh; Hubert J Stein; Nicholas J Talley; Jean-Paul Galmiche; Tony C K Tham; Peter Watson; Lisa Yerian; Massimo Rugge; Thomas W Rice; John Hart; Stuart Gittens; David Hewin; Juergen Hochberger; Peter Kahrilas; Sean Preston; Richard Sampliner; Prateek Sharma; Robert Stuart; Kenneth Wang; Irving Waxman; Chris Abley; Duncan Loft; Ian Penman; Nicholas J Shaheen; Amitabh Chak; Gareth Davies; Lorna Dunn; Yngve Falck-Ytter; John Decaestecker; Pradeep Bhandari; Christian Ell; S Michael Griffin; Stephen Attwood; Hugh Barr; John Allen; Mark K Ferguson; Paul Moayyedi; Janusz A Z Jankowski Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Stuart Jon Spechler; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Ganapathy A Prasad; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 22.682