SNFGE SNFGE
 
Thématique :
- Oesophage/Estomac
Originalité :
Intermédiaire
Solidité :
Intermédiaire
Doit faire évoluer notre pratique :
Pas encore
 
 
Nom du veilleur :
Docteur Pauline JOUET
Coup de coeur :
 
 
Gastroenterology
  2017/02  
 
  2017 Feb;152(3):564-570.e4  
  doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.041.  
 
  Discordance Among Pathologists in the United States and Europe in Diagnosis of Low-Grade Dysplasia for Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.  
 
  Vennalaganti P, Kanakadandi V, Goldblum JR, Mathur SC, Patil DT, Offerhaus GJ, Meijer SL, Vieth M, Odze RD, Shreyas S, Parasa S, Gupta N, Repici A, Bansal A, Mohammad T, Sharma P  
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27818167  
 
 

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS:

There is suboptimal inter-observer agreement, even among expert gastrointestinal pathologists, in the diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We analyzed histopathologic criteria required for a diagnosis of LGD using the new subcategories of LGD with inflammatory and dysplastic features. We categorized each diagnosis based on the level of confidence and assessed inter-observer agreement among gastrointestinal pathologists from 5 tertiary centers in the United States and Europe.

METHODS:

In the first phase of the study, 3 pathologists held a consensus conference at which they discussed the diagnostic criteria for LGD. In the second phase, 79 slides from patients with BE (23 samples of non-dysplastic BE, 22 samples of LGD, and 34 samples of high-grade dysplasia) were identified, randomly assigned to 7 pathologists (4 from the United States and 3 from Europe), and interpreted in a blinded fashion. κ Values were calculated for inter-observer agreement. We performed multinomial logistic regression analysis to assess the weighting of histologic features with the diagnosis.

RESULTS:

The overall κ value for diagnosis was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.48). When categorized based on degree of dysplasia, the κ value was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29) for non-dysplastic BE, 0.11 (95% CI, 0.004-0.15) for LGD, and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.36-0.46) for high-grade dysplasia. When all pathologists made a diagnosis with high confidence, the inter-observer agreement was substantial among the US pathologists (κ, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.66) and European pathologists (κ, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97). The κ values for all diagnoses made by European pathologists were higher than those made by US pathologists.

CONCLUSIONS:

In an analysis of criteria used in histopathologic diagnosis of LGD, we did not observe improvement in level of agreement among experienced pathologists, even after accounting for inflammation. The level of inter-observer agreement increased with level of pathologist confidence. There was also a difference in reading of histopathology samples of BE tissues between US and European pathologists.

 

 
Question posée
 
Trois experts anatomopathologistes ont établis de nouveaux critères tenant compte de l’inflammation pour le diagnostic de dysplasie sur endobrachyoesophage (EBO) afin d’améliorer la reproductibilité du diagnostic. Ces critères permettent-ils d’améliorer l’accord entre observateurs pour le diagnostic de dysplasie ?
 
Question posée
 
Alors que les observateurs étaient 7 experts anatomopathologistes, l’utilisation de critères plus précis n’a pas amélioré l’accord entre observateurs pour le diagnostic de dysplasie sur EBO.
 
Commentaires

Des résultats négatifs qui soulignent l’importance de la mise au point d’autres techniques (comme l’analyse de l’expression de p53) pour améliorer la reproductibilité du diagnostic de dysplasie sur EBO.

 
www.snfge.org