BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coeliac disease (CD) diagnosis requires the detection of characteristic histological alterations of small bowel mucosa, which are prone to interobserver variability. This study evaluated the agreement in biopsy interpretation between different pathology practice types. METHODS: Biopsies from community hospitals (n=46), university hospitals (n=18) and commercial laboratories (n=38) were blindly assessed by a pathologist at our institution for differences in histopathology reporting and agreement in diagnosis of CD and degree of villous atrophy (VA) by κ analysis. RESULTS: Agreement for primary diagnosis was very good between this institution and university hospitals (κ=0.888), but moderate compared with community hospitals (κ=0.465) or commercial laboratories (κ=0.419). Diagnosis differed in 26 (25%) cases, leading to a 20% increase in CD diagnosis after review. Among those diagnosed with CD by both institutions (n=49), agreement in degree of VA was fair (κ=0.292), with moderate agreement between the authors and commercial laboratories (κ=0.500) and fair with university hospitals (κ=0.290) or community hospitals (κ=0.211). The degree of VA was upgraded in 27% and downgraded in 2%. Within different Marsh score categories, agreement was poor (κ<0.0316) for scores 1 and 2, both missed at other centres, and fair or moderate for scores 3a and 3b. Information regarding degree of VA and intraepithelial lymphocytosis was lacking in 26% and 86% of reports and non-quantifiable descriptors, eg, 'blunting' or 'marked atrophy' were prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: CD-related histological changes are underdiagnosed in community-based hospitals and commercial pathology laboratories. Because incorrect biopsy interpretation can cause underdiagnosis of CD, greater CD awareness and uniformity in small bowel biopsy reporting is required among pathologists.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coeliac disease (CD) diagnosis requires the detection of characteristic histological alterations of small bowel mucosa, which are prone to interobserver variability. This study evaluated the agreement in biopsy interpretation between different pathology practice types. METHODS: Biopsies from community hospitals (n=46), university hospitals (n=18) and commercial laboratories (n=38) were blindly assessed by a pathologist at our institution for differences in histopathology reporting and agreement in diagnosis of CD and degree of villous atrophy (VA) by κ analysis. RESULTS: Agreement for primary diagnosis was very good between this institution and university hospitals (κ=0.888), but moderate compared with community hospitals (κ=0.465) or commercial laboratories (κ=0.419). Diagnosis differed in 26 (25%) cases, leading to a 20% increase in CD diagnosis after review. Among those diagnosed with CD by both institutions (n=49), agreement in degree of VA was fair (κ=0.292), with moderate agreement between the authors and commercial laboratories (κ=0.500) and fair with university hospitals (κ=0.290) or community hospitals (κ=0.211). The degree of VA was upgraded in 27% and downgraded in 2%. Within different Marsh score categories, agreement was poor (κ<0.0316) for scores 1 and 2, both missed at other centres, and fair or moderate for scores 3a and 3b. Information regarding degree of VA and intraepithelial lymphocytosis was lacking in 26% and 86% of reports and non-quantifiable descriptors, eg, 'blunting' or 'marked atrophy' were prevalent. CONCLUSIONS:CD-related histological changes are underdiagnosed in community-based hospitals and commercial pathology laboratories. Because incorrect biopsy interpretation can cause underdiagnosis of CD, greater CD awareness and uniformity in small bowel biopsy reporting is required among pathologists.
Authors: Benjamin Lebwohl; Robert M Genta; Robert C Kapel; Daniel Sheehan; Nina S Lerner; Peter H Green; Alfred I Neugut; Andrew Rundle Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: Michael Gadermayr; Hubert Kogler; Maximilian Karla; Dorit Merhof; Andreas Uhl; Andreas Vécsei Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Daniel C Adelman; Joseph Murray; Tsung-Teh Wu; Markku Mäki; Peter H Green; Ciarán P Kelly Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Allie B Cichewicz; Elizabeth S Mearns; Aliki Taylor; Talia Boulanger; Michele Gerber; Daniel A Leffler; Jennifer Drahos; David S Sanders; Kelly J Thomas Craig; Benjamin Lebwohl Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Robyn Jordan; Sarah Shannahan; Suzanne K Lewis; Suneeta Krishnareddy; Daniel A Leffler; Peter H R Green; Benjamin Lebwohl Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2017-04-02 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: Benjamin Lebwohl; Govind Bhagat; Sarah Markoff; Suzanne K Lewis; Scott Smukalla; Alfred I Neugut; Peter H R Green Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Benjamin Lebwohl; Alberto Rubio-Tapia; Asaad Assiri; Catherine Newland; Stefano Guandalini Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am Date: 2012-08-20