| Literature DB >> 29849600 |
Xian-Rui Wu1, Hua-Shan Liu1, Xue-Ying Shi2, Wei-Xun Zhou3, Zhi-Nong Jiang4, Yan Huang5, Dipti M Karamchandani6, John R Goldblum7, Shu-Yuan Xiao8, Hong-Fa Zhu9, Michael M Feely10, Amy L Collinsworth10, Ashwini Esnakula10, Hao Xie11, Bo Shen12, Ping Lan1, Xiu-Li Liu10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interobserver variability in diagnosing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-associated neoplasia among practicing pathologists from China using telepathology, a practice of remote diagnostic consultation increasingly used nationally and internationally, and its comparison with the interpretation of subspecialized gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists from the United States (US).Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29849600 PMCID: PMC5937390 DOI: 10.1155/2018/8715263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Features evaluated in this study.
| Features | Definition | Score/code |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Absent | The size and staining quality of surface and crypt basal nucleus are identical. | 0 |
| Present | The surface nucleus is smaller and stains paler than the crypt basal nucleus. | 1 |
|
| ||
| Absent | The nucleus of interest is of normal size or similar to nearby nonneoplastic epithelial nucleus. | 0 |
| Present | The nucleus of interest is larger than nearby nonneoplastic epithelial nucleus. | 1 |
|
| ||
| Absent | The nucleus of interest has similar staining quality similar to adjacent nonneoplastic epithelial nucleus. | 0 |
| Present | The nucleus of interest stains darker than normal or darker than adjacent nonneoplastic epithelial nucleus. | 1 |
|
| ||
| Absent | The nucleus is not overlapping with each other, and there is a single layer of nuclei in the glandular lining epithelium. | 0 |
| Present, only involving the basal half of the crypt epithelium | The nucleus shows overlapping with each other, more than single layer of nuclei in the glandular lining epithelium, but occupying the basal half of the glandular epithelium thickness. | 1 |
| Present, reaching more than half way to the crypt epithelium | The nucleus shows overlapping with each other, more than single layer of nuclei in the glandular lining epithelium, and reaching more than half way to the glandular epithelium thickness. | 2 |
|
| ||
| Absent | The nucleus of interest has uniform size and shape. | 0 |
| Present | The nucleus of interest has different size and shape. | 1 |
|
| ||
| Absent | The long axis of the nucleus is perpendicular to the basement membrane and arranged paralleling to each other. | 0 |
| Present | The long axis of the nucleus is no longer perpendicular to the basement membrane and arranged in a haphazard way with each other. | 1 |
|
| ||
| Absent | Small straight glands. | 0 |
| Present, cribriform | Gland-in-gland. | 1 |
| Present, papillary | Papillary structure on the surface and/or in the lumen of the glands. | 2 |
| Present, cribriform and papillary | Both cribriform and papillary structures present. | 3 |
|
| ||
| Absent | Only normal mitosis seen. | 0 |
| Present | Mitosis with three or more poles. | 1 |
Interpretation of IBD colonic biopsies by four pathologists from China in comparison to the consensus diagnosis from US.
| Consensus negative ( | Consensus LGD ( | Consensus HGD ( | Consensus carcinoma ( | Indefinite for dysplasia ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewer 1 | 21 (negative) | 16 (LGD) | 3 (HGD) | 2 (carcinoma) | 1 (negative) |
|
| |||||
| Reviewer 2 | 20 (negative) | 20 (LGD) | 3 (HGD) | 2 (carcinoma) | 1 (negative) |
|
| |||||
| Reviewer 3 | 20 (negative) | 21 (LGD) | 2 (HGD) | 1 (carcinoma) | 1 (LGD) |
|
| |||||
| Reviewer 4 | 19 (negative) | 19 (LGD) | 2 (HGD) | 1 (carcinoma) | 1 (IND) |
Note: LGD: low-grade dysplasia; HGD: high-grade dysplasia; IND: indefinite for dysplasia. US consensus is defined as diagnostic agreement by at least 4 participating US GI pathologists.
Interobserver agreement between each reviewer from China and consensus diagnosis rendered by 8 US GI pathologists.
| Reviewer | Pathology experience (year) | Kappa between review pathology and the consensus diagnosis [95% confidence interval] | Agreement |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16 | 0.75 [0.58, 0.90] | Substantial | <0.05 |
| 2 | 20 | 0.80 [0.64, 0.94] | Substantial | <0.05 |
| 3 | 16 | 0.80 [0.65, 0.93] | Substantial | <0.05 |
| 4 | 20 | 0.75 [0.56, 0.78] | Substantial | <0.05 |
Figure 1Examples of colonic biopsies with consensus diagnoses by US pathologists were concurred by all 4 Chinese pathologists. (a) There was cryptal distortion, but without nuclear enlargement and hyperchromasia. Surface maturation was present. This case was interpreted as negative for dysplasia (H&E, 200x). (b) This biopsy showed hyperchromatic and enlarged nuclei without surface maturation. The overall features supported a diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (H&E, 200x). (c) This colonic biopsy showed hyperchromatic nuclei without surface maturation. There was focal nuclear pleomorphism, loss of polarity, and architectural complexity, thus was interpreted as high-grade dysplasia (H&E, 200x). (d) This colonic biopsy showed proliferation of small glands with nuclear pleomorphism and loss of polarity, and desmoplasia, features diagnostic of invasive adenocarcinoma (H&E, 200x).
Figure 2One colonic biopsy with a consensus diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia by US pathologists was read as low-grade dysplasia by two Chinese pathologists (a) (H&E, 200x). The dysplastic glands had very bland nuclear features but a complex cribriform architecture, thus was interpreted as high-grade dysplasia by US pathologists. Another example of colonic biopsy with a consensus diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia by US pathologists was read as high-grade dysplasia by three Chinese pathologists (b) (H&E, 200x). The dysplastic glands had maintained nuclear polarity and without obvious nuclear pleomorphism. The architecture was focally complex with impending cribriform glands, but was regarded within the low-grade dysplasia spectrum by US pathologists.
Diagnostic use of each feature in the diagnosis of colitis-associated dysplasia (CAD) (negative versus other).
| Features in the diagnosis of CAD | Negative versus other | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sen (%) | Spe (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 100 | 93.33 | 93.33 | 100 |
| Reviewer 2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 3 | 96.55 | 100 | 100 | 95.45 |
| Reviewer 4 | 93.10 | 95.24 | 96.43 | 90.91 |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 100 | 31.82 | 65.12 | 100 |
| Reviewer 2 | 89.66 | 76.19 | 83.87 | 84.21 |
| Reviewer 3 | 96.55 | 66.67 | 80 | 93.33 |
| Reviewer 4 | 100 | 61.90 | 78.38 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 92.86 | 40.91 | 66.67 | 81.82 |
| Reviewer 2 | 93.10 | 42.86 | 69.23 | 81.82 |
| Reviewer 3 | 96.55 | 66.67 | 80.00 | 93.33 |
| Reviewer 4 | 100 | 52.38 | 74.36 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 96.43 | 90.91 | 93.10 | 95.24 |
| Reviewer 2 | 96.55 | 47.62 | 71.79 | 90.91 |
| Reviewer 3 | 100 | 71.43 | 82.86 | 100 |
| Reviewer 4 | 100 | 71.43 | 82.86 | 100 |
Diagnostic use of each feature in the diagnosis of colitis-associated high-grade dysplasia HGD or carcinoma.
| Features in the diagnosis of colitis-associated HGD or carcinoma | HGD and carcinoma versus others | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sen (%) | Spe (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 95.45 |
| Reviewer 2 | 50 | 97.73 | 75 | 93.48 |
| Reviewer 3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 95.45 |
| Reviewer 2 | 83.33 | 100 | 100 | 97.78 |
| Reviewer 3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 95.45 |
| Reviewer 2 | 83.33 | 97.73 | 83.33 | 97.73 |
| Reviewer 3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 62.5 | 100 | 100 | 93.33 |
| Reviewer 2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 3 | 100 | 97.83 | 80.00 | 100 |
| Reviewer 4 | 60 | 95.56 | 60 | 95.56 |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 2 | 100 | 97.73 | 85.71 | 100 |
| Reviewer 3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 4 | 100 | 84.85 | 71.43 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| Reviewer 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 2 | 83.33 | 97.73 | 83.33 | 97.73 |
| Reviewer 3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Reviewer 4 | 100 | 95.56 | 71.43 | 100 |