Chantal C H J Kuijpers1,2,3, Caro E Sluijter2,4, Jan H von der Thüsen5,6, Katrien Grünberg6,7, Martijn G H van Oijen2,8, Paul J van Diest1, Mehdi Jiwa1,3, Iris D Nagtegaal2,4, Lucy I H Overbeek2, Stefan M Willems1,2. 1. Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Foundation PALGA (the Nationwide Network and Registry of Histo- and Cytopathology in The Netherlands), Houten, The Netherlands. 3. Symbiant Pathology Expert Centre, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 6. NVVP (Dutch Society of Pathology), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: Although high-grade dysplasia (HGD) is a risk factor for malignant transformation and the future development of adenomas/carcinomas, grade is not incorporated in the Dutch guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance, partly because of presumed interobserver variability. The aim of this study was to analyse, in a nationwide cohort of colorectal adenomas, the interlaboratory variability in the grading of dysplasia in daily practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the Dutch Pathology Registry, all synoptically reported classic adenomas in The Netherlands in 2013 were identified. The proportion of adenomas with HGD was determined for biopsies and polypectomies, and compared between 37 laboratories by the use of multivariable logistic regression analyses. In total, 21 030 colonoscopies of 20 270 patients were included. HGD was reported in 530 (3.6%) of 14 866 adenomas diagnosed on biopsies (range between laboratories: 0-13.6%) and in 983 (11.8%) of 8346 adenomas diagnosed on polypectomies (range: 3.1-42.9%). After adjustment for case mix, 13 (35%) laboratories reported a significantly lower or higher frequency of HGD than average. CONCLUSIONS: We observed considerable interlaboratory variation in the grading of dysplasia in colorectal adenomas, which could be only partly explained by differences in case mix. Therefore, better standardization of grading criteria is needed before grade of dysplasia can usefully be incorporated in colonoscopy surveillance guidelines.
AIMS: Although high-grade dysplasia (HGD) is a risk factor for malignant transformation and the future development of adenomas/carcinomas, grade is not incorporated in the Dutch guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance, partly because of presumed interobserver variability. The aim of this study was to analyse, in a nationwide cohort of colorectal adenomas, the interlaboratory variability in the grading of dysplasia in daily practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the Dutch Pathology Registry, all synoptically reported classic adenomas in The Netherlands in 2013 were identified. The proportion of adenomas with HGD was determined for biopsies and polypectomies, and compared between 37 laboratories by the use of multivariable logistic regression analyses. In total, 21 030 colonoscopies of 20 270 patients were included. HGD was reported in 530 (3.6%) of 14 866 adenomas diagnosed on biopsies (range between laboratories: 0-13.6%) and in 983 (11.8%) of 8346 adenomas diagnosed on polypectomies (range: 3.1-42.9%). After adjustment for case mix, 13 (35%) laboratories reported a significantly lower or higher frequency of HGD than average. CONCLUSIONS: We observed considerable interlaboratory variation in the grading of dysplasia in colorectal adenomas, which could be only partly explained by differences in case mix. Therefore, better standardization of grading criteria is needed before grade of dysplasia can usefully be incorporated in colonoscopy surveillance guidelines.
Authors: Rachel N Flach; Nina L Fransen; Andreas F P Sonnen; Tri Q Nguyen; Gerben E Breimer; Mitko Veta; Nikolas Stathonikos; Carmen van Dooijeweert; Paul J van Diest Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-04-21
Authors: David Fiedler; Daniela Hirsch; Nady El Hajj; Howard H Yang; Yue Hu; Carsten Sticht; Indrajit Nanda; Sebastian Belle; Josef Rueschoff; Maxwell P Lee; Thomas Ried; Thomas Haaf; Timo Gaiser Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 4.263
Authors: Charlotte E L Klaver; Nicole Bulkmans; Paul Drillenburg; Heike I Grabsch; Nicole C T van Grieken; Arend Karrenbeld; Lianne Koens; Ineke van Lijnschoten; Jos Meijer; Iris D Nagtegaal; Xavier Sagaert; Kees Seldenrijk; M F van Velthuysen; Annette H Bruggink; Pieter J Tanis; Petur Snaebjornsson Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Carmen van Dooijeweert; Paul J van Diest; Stefan M Willems; Chantal C H J Kuijpers; Elsken van der Wall; Lucy I H Overbeek; Ivette A G Deckers Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 7.396
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