Literature DB >> 28881901

Digital microscopy as valid alternative to conventional microscopy for histological evaluation of Barrett's esophagus biopsies.

M J van der Wel1,2, L C Duits2, C A Seldenrijk3, G J Offerhaus4, M Visser5, F J Ten Kate4, O J de Boer1, J G Tijssen6, J J Bergman2, S L Meijer1.   

Abstract

Management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) relies heavily on histopathological assessment of biopsies, associated with significant intra- and interobserver variability. Guidelines recommend biopsy review by an expert in case of dysplasia. Conventional review of biopsies, however, is impractical and does not allow for teleconferencing or annotations. An expert digital review platform might overcome these limitations. We compared diagnostic agreement of digital and conventional microscopy for diagnosing BE ± dysplasia. Sixty BE biopsy glass slides (non-dysplastic BE (NDBE); n = 25, low-grade dysplasia (LGD); n = 20; high-grade dysplasia (HGD); n = 15) were scanned at ×20 magnification. The slides were assessed four times by five expert BE pathologists, all practicing histopathologists (range: 5-30 years), in 2 alternating rounds of digital and conventional microscopy, each in randomized order and sequence of slides. Intraobserver and pairwise interobserver agreement were calculated, using custom weighted Cohen's kappa, adjusted for the maximum possible kappa scores. Split into three categories (NDBE, IND, LGD+HGD), the mean intraobserver agreement was 0.75 and 0.84 for digital and conventional assessment, respectively (p = 0.35). Mean pairwise interobserver agreement was 0.80 for digital and 0.85 for conventional microscopy (p = 0.17). In 47/60 (78%) of digital microscopy reviews a majority vote of ≥3 pathologists was reached before consensus meeting. After group discussion, a majority vote was achieved in all cases (60/60). Diagnostic agreement of digital microscopy is comparable to that of conventional microscopy. These outcomes justify the use of digital slides in a nationwide, web-based BE revision platform in the Netherlands. This will overcome the practical issues associated with conventional histologic review by multiple pathologists.
© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Barrett's esophagus; microscopy; observer variation, telepathology

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28881901     DOI: 10.1093/dote/dox078

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Esophagus        ISSN: 1120-8694            Impact factor:   3.429


  5 in total

1.  Profiling patient-reported symptom recovery from oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a real-world longitudinal study.

Authors:  Xi Luo; Qin Xie; Qiuling Shi; Yan Miao; Qingsong Yu; Hongfan Yu; Hong Yin; Xuefeng Leng; Yongtao Han; Hong Zhou
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Short-Term Outcomes of Epidural Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Nationwide Inpatient Data Study in Japan.

Authors:  Yuki Hirano; Hidehiro Kaneko; Takaaki Konishi; Hidetaka Itoh; Satoru Matsuda; Hirofumi Kawakubo; Kazuaki Uda; Hiroki Matsui; Kiyohide Fushimi; Hiroyuki Daiko; Osamu Itano; Hideo Yasunaga; Yuko Kitagawa
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 4.339

3.  Adherence to pre-set benchmark quality criteria to qualify as expert assessor of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus biopsies - towards digital review of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  M J van der Wel; E Klaver; L C Duits; R E Pouw; C A Seldenrijk; Gja Offerhaus; M Visser; Fjw Ten Kate; K Biermann; Laa Brosens; M Doukas; C Huysentruyt; A Karrenbeld; G Kats-Ugurlu; J S van der Laan; G van Lijnschoten; Fcp Moll; Ahag Ooms; J G Tijssen; Jjghm Bergman; S L Meijer
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 4.623

4.  Development of benchmark quality criteria for assessing whole-endoscopy Barrett's esophagus biopsy cases.

Authors:  M J van der Wel; L C Duits; E Klaver; R E Pouw; C A Seldenrijk; Gja Offerhaus; M Visser; Fjw Ten Kate; J G Tijssen; Jjghm Bergman; S L Meijer
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 4.623

5.  Optimal Perioperative Pain Management in Esophageal Surgery: An Evaluation of Paravertebral Analgesia.

Authors:  Minke L Feenstra; Werner Ten Hoope; Jeroen Hermanides; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Markus W Hollmann; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Wietse J Eshuis
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 5.344

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.