| Literature DB >> 28127386 |
R Tumino1,2,3, P F Rambau3, F Callea2,4, L Leoncini2,5, R Monaco2,6, J Kahima3, V Stracca Pansa2, L Viberti2,7, D Amadori8, P Giovenali2,9, K A Mteta3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2000, an Italian non-governmental organisation (NGO) began a 9-year project to establish a surgical pathology laboratory at the Bugando Medical Centre (BMC) in Mwanza, Tanzania, a country with a low Human Development Index (HDI), and as of 2009, the laboratory was operating autonomously. The present survey aims to evaluate the reproducibility of histological and cytological diagnoses assigned in the laboratory's early years of autonomous activity. We selected a random sample of 196 histological and cytological diagnoses issued in 2010-2011 at the BMC surgical pathology laboratory. The corresponding samples were sent to Italy for review by Italian senior pathologists, who were blinded to the local results. Samples were classified into four diagnostic categories: malignant, benign, inflammatory, and suspicious. The two-observer kappa-statistic for categorised (qualitative) data was then calculated to measure diagnostic concordance between the local Tanzanian pathologists and Italian senior pathologists. The k-Cohen was calculated for concordance in the overall study sample. Concordance and discordance rates were also stratified by subset: general adult, paediatric/adolescent, and lymphoproliferative histopathological diagnoses; fluid and fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytological diagnoses; and PAP tests. Discordance was also categorised by the corresponding hypothetical clinical implications: high, intermediate, and not significant.Entities:
Keywords: Error; K-statistic; Low-Human Development Index countries; Pathology diagnosis; Quality control; Reproducibility
Year: 2017 PMID: 28127386 PMCID: PMC5251287 DOI: 10.1186/s13027-017-0115-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Agent Cancer ISSN: 1750-9378 Impact factor: 2.965
Anatomical site of samples received from the BMC, and sex and age of the study sample by subset
| Anatomical site | Subset | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General adult pathological diagnoses | Paediatric/adolescent pathological diagnoses | Lymphoproliferative pathological diagnoses | Fluid/FNA cytological diagnoses | PAP test | Total | |
| Cervix | 21 | 1 | - | - | 20 | 42 (21.4%) |
| Lymphnode | - | - | 22 | 7 | - | 29 (14.8%) |
| Breast female | 6 | 4 | - | 7 | - | 17 (8.7%) |
| Skin | 11 | 5 | - | - | - | 16 (8.2%) |
| Prostate | 12 | - | - | - | - | 12 (6.1%) |
| Intrabdominal | 6 | 1 | - | 5 | - | 12 (6.1%) |
| Ovary | 6 | 2 | 3 | - | - | 11 (5.6%) |
| Small/Large bowel | 5 | 2 | - | - | - | 7 (3.6%) |
| Thyroid | 5 | - | - | 1 | - | 6 (3.1%) |
| Bone | - | 6 | - | - | - | 6 (3.1%) |
| Kidney | 2 | 3 | - | - | - | 5 (2.5%) |
| Submandibular | 3 | 1 | - | - | - | 4 (2.1%) |
| Oesophagus | 3 | - | - | - | - | 3 (1.5%) |
| Testis | 2 | - | - | - | - | 2 (1.0%) |
| Other | 5 | 9 | 4 | 3 | - | 21 (10.7%) |
| Total | 90 | 34 | 29 | 23 | 20 | 196 (100%) |
| Sex | ||||||
| F | 57 | 21 | 16 | 15 | 20 | 129 (65.8%) |
| M | 33 | 12 | 10 | 8 | - | 63 (32.2%) |
| Unknown | - | 1 | 3 | - | - | 4 (2.0%) |
| Total | 90 | 34 | 29 | 23 | 20 | 196 (100%) |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| 0–19 | 0 | 34 | 14 | 7 | 1 | 56 (28.6%) |
| 20–50 | 54 | - | 9 | 7 | 10 | 80 (40.8%) |
| 51–74 | 24 | - | 1 | 7 | 2 | 34 (17.4%) |
| 75+ | 8 | - | 2 | 2 | 0 | 10 (5.1%) |
| Unknown | 4 | - | 5 | 0 | 7 | 16 (8.2%) |
| Total | 90 | 34 | 29 | 23 | 20 | 196 (100%) |
FNA fine needle aspiration
Overall diagnostic concordance by the four diagnostic categories considered
| BMC – MWANZA | Agreement | Kappa | St. error | Prob > z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85.20% | 0.7691 | 0.0505 | 0.0000 | ||
| Italian reviewer | |||||
| Malignant | Benign | Inflammatory | Suspicious | Total | |
| Malignant | 77 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 86 |
| Benign | 5 | 67 | 3 | 0 | 75 |
| Inflammatory | 1 | 6 | 21 | 4 | 32 |
| Suspicious | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Total | 83 | 77 | 27 | 9 | 196 |
BMC Bugando Medical Centre
Diagnostic concordance in lymphoproliferative pathological diagnoses by histological subtype of lymphoma
| BMC-MWANZA | Concordance | Discordance | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75.86% | 24.14% | ||||||||||||
| Italian reviewer | |||||||||||||
| BL | DLBCL | FL | HL | INFL | KAPOSI | LG | LBL | NHL-NOS | PBL | TCL | THYMOMA | TOTAL | |
| BURKITT | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| DLBCL | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| FOLLICULAR | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| INFLAMMATORY | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| HODGKIN LYMPH. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| KAPOSI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| LYMPHOMATOID GR. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LYMPHOBLASTIC | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| NHL-NOS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| PLASMABLASTIC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| T-CELL LYMPH. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| THYMOMA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 29 |
BL BURKITT LYMPHOMA, BMC Bugando Medical Centre, DLBCL DIFFUSE LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA, FL FOLLICULAR LYMPHOMA, HL HODGKIN LYMPHOMA, INFL INFLAMMATORY, LG LYMPHOMATOID GRANULOMATOSIS, NHL-NOS NOH HODGKIN LYMPHOMA UNCLASSIFIABLE, PBL PLSMABLASTIC LYMPHOMA, TCL T-CELL LYMHOMA
Diagnostic concordance by the four diagnostic categories and by the histological subtypes of these diagnoses
| SUBSET | Number | Concordance by diagnostic categories (a) | Concordance by histological subtype (b) |
|---|---|---|---|
| General adult pathological diagnoses | 90 | 81 (90.00%) | 79 (87.80%) |
| Paediatric/adolescent pathological diagnoses | 34 | 31 (91.18%) | 26 (76.47%) |
| Lymphoproliferative pathological diagnoses | 29 | 27 (93.10%) | 22 (75.86%) |
| Fluid/FNA cytological diagnoses | 23 | 13 (56.52%) | - |
| PAP tests | 20 | 15 (75.00%) | - |
FNA fine needle aspiration
(a) = on the basis of malignant/benign/inflammatory/suspicious categories
(b) = on the basis of specific histo-types
Diagnostic discordance in the subsets by the four diagnostic categories and hypothetical clinical implications
| SUBSET | Number | Discordance by four categories(a) | High | Intermediate | Not significant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General adult pathology | 90 | 9 (10.0%) | 5(5.6%) | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) |
| Paediatric/adolescence | 34 | 3 (8.8%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0 | 2 (5.8%) |
| Lymphoproliferative | 29 | 2 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | - | - |
| Fluid/FNA cytological diagnoses | 23 | 10 (43.5%) | 3(13.0%) | 5 (21.7%) | 2 (8.7%) |
| PAP test | 20 | 5 (25.0%) | 1 (5.0%) | 1 (5.0%) | 3(15.0%) |
| Overall | 196 | 29 (14.8%) | 12 6.1%) | 8 (4.1%) | 9 (3.6%) |
| Lymphoproliferative by histological subtype (b) | 29 | 7 (24.1%) | 2 (6.9%) | 4 (13.8%) | 1 (3.4%) |
FNA fine needle aspiration
(a) = on the basis of malignant/benign/inflammatory/suspicious categories
(b) = on the basis of 12 histo-types
Fig. 1Breakdown of the 196 diagnoses by subset, concordance and discordance (*), and hypothetical clinical implications. (*): Discordance on the basis of malignant/benign/inflammatory/suspicious classification.