AIMS: Following the introduction of colorectal cancer screening programmes throughout Canada, it became necessary to standardise the diagnosis of colorectal adenomas. Canadian guidelines for standardised reporting of adenomas were developed in 2011. The aims of the present study were (a) to assess interobserver variability in the classification of dysplasia and architecture in adenomas and (b) to determine if interobserver variability could be improved by the adoption of criteria specified in the national guidelines. METHODS: An a priori power analysis was used to determine an adequate number of cases and participants. Twelve pathologists independently classified 40 whole-slide images of adenomas according to architecture and dysplasia grade. Following a wash-out period, participants were provided with the national guidelines and asked to reclassify the study set. RESULTS: At baseline, there was moderate interobserver agreement for architecture (K=0.4700; 95% CI 0.4427 to 0.4972) and dysplasia grade (K=0.5680; 95% CI 0.5299 to 0.6062). Following distribution of the guidelines, there was improved interobserver agreement in assessing architecture (K=0.5403; 95% CI 0.5133 to 0.5674)). For dysplasia grade, overall interobserver agreement remained moderate but decreased significantly (K=0.4833; 95% CI 0.4452 to 0.5215). Half of the cases contained high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Two pathologists diagnosed HGD in ≥75% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in interobserver agreement in classifying adenoma architecture suggests that national guidelines can be useful in disseminating knowledge, however, the variability in the diagnosis of HGD, even following guideline review suggests the need for ongoing knowledge-transfer exercises.
AIMS: Following the introduction of colorectal cancer screening programmes throughout Canada, it became necessary to standardise the diagnosis of colorectal adenomas. Canadian guidelines for standardised reporting of adenomas were developed in 2011. The aims of the present study were (a) to assess interobserver variability in the classification of dysplasia and architecture in adenomas and (b) to determine if interobserver variability could be improved by the adoption of criteria specified in the national guidelines. METHODS: An a priori power analysis was used to determine an adequate number of cases and participants. Twelve pathologists independently classified 40 whole-slide images of adenomas according to architecture and dysplasia grade. Following a wash-out period, participants were provided with the national guidelines and asked to reclassify the study set. RESULTS: At baseline, there was moderate interobserver agreement for architecture (K=0.4700; 95% CI 0.4427 to 0.4972) and dysplasia grade (K=0.5680; 95% CI 0.5299 to 0.6062). Following distribution of the guidelines, there was improved interobserver agreement in assessing architecture (K=0.5403; 95% CI 0.5133 to 0.5674)). For dysplasia grade, overall interobserver agreement remained moderate but decreased significantly (K=0.4833; 95% CI 0.4452 to 0.5215). Half of the cases contained high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Two pathologists diagnosed HGD in ≥75% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in interobserver agreement in classifying adenoma architecture suggests that national guidelines can be useful in disseminating knowledge, however, the variability in the diagnosis of HGD, even following guideline review suggests the need for ongoing knowledge-transfer exercises.
Authors: Rawad Mounzer; Roy Yen; Carrie Marshall; Sharon Sams; Sanjana Mehrotra; Mohamed Sherif Said; Joshua C Obuch; Brian Brauer; Augustin Attwell; Norio Fukami; Raj Shah; Stuart Amateau; Matthew Hall; Lindsay Hosford; Robert Wilson; Amit Rastogi; Sachin Wani Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2016-06-21
Authors: Jason W Wei; Arief A Suriawinata; Louis J Vaickus; Bing Ren; Xiaoying Liu; Mikhail Lisovsky; Naofumi Tomita; Behnaz Abdollahi; Adam S Kim; Dale C Snover; John A Baron; Elizabeth L Barry; Saeed Hassanpour Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-04-01
Authors: Mustafa Nasir-Moin; Arief A Suriawinata; Bing Ren; Xiaoying Liu; Douglas J Robertson; Srishti Bagchi; Naofumi Tomita; Jason W Wei; Todd A MacKenzie; Judy R Rees; Saeed Hassanpour Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Lisanne J H Smits; Elisa Vink-Börger; Gesina van Lijnschoten; Isabelle Focke-Snieders; Rachel S van der Post; Jurriaan B Tuynman; Nicole C T van Grieken; Iris D Nagtegaal Journal: Histopathology Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 7.778
Authors: Alex Ngai Nick Wong; Zebang He; Ka Long Leung; Curtis Chun Kit To; Chun Yin Wong; Sze Chuen Cesar Wong; Jung Sun Yoo; Cheong Kin Ronald Chan; Angela Zaneta Chan; Maribel D Lacambra; Martin Ho Yin Yeung Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Sara P Oliveira; Pedro C Neto; João Fraga; Diana Montezuma; Ana Monteiro; João Monteiro; Liliana Ribeiro; Sofia Gonçalves; Isabel M Pinto; Jaime S Cardoso Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 4.379