Performance of gastrointestinal pathologists within a national digital review panel for Barrett’s oesophagus in the Netherlands: results of 80 prospective biopsy reviews

Aims The histopathological diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) is associated with poor interobserver agreement and guidelines dictate expert review. To facilitate nationwide expert review in the Netherlands, a web-based digital review panel has been set up, which currently consists of eight ‘core’ pathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate if other pathologists from the Dutch BO expert centres qualify for the expert panel by assessing their performance in 80 consecutive LGD reviews submitted to the panel. Methods Pathologists independently assessed digi... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Klaver, Esther
van der Wel, Myrtle
Duits, Lucas
Pouw, Roos
Seldenrijk, Kees
Offerhaus, Johan
Visser, Mike
ten Kate, Fiebo
Biermann, Katharina
Brosens, Lodewijk
Doukas, Michael
Huysentruyt, Clément
Karrenbeld, Arend
Kats-Ugurlu, Gursah
van der Laan, Jaap
van Lijnschoten, Ineke
Moll, Freek
Ooms, Ariadne
Tijssen, Jan
Meijer, Sybren
Bergman, Jacques
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2020
Reihe/Periodikum: Journal of Clinical Pathology ; volume 74, issue 1, page 48-52 ; ISSN 0021-9746 1472-4146
Verlag/Hrsg.: BMJ
Schlagwörter: General Medicine / Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27217711
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206511

Aims The histopathological diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) is associated with poor interobserver agreement and guidelines dictate expert review. To facilitate nationwide expert review in the Netherlands, a web-based digital review panel has been set up, which currently consists of eight ‘core’ pathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate if other pathologists from the Dutch BO expert centres qualify for the expert panel by assessing their performance in 80 consecutive LGD reviews submitted to the panel. Methods Pathologists independently assessed digital slides in two phases. Both phases consisted of 40 cases, with a group discussion after phase I. For all cases, a previous consensus diagnosis made by five core pathologists was available, which was used as reference. The following criteria were used: (1) percentage of ‘indefinite for dysplasia’ diagnoses, (2) percentage agreement with consensus diagnosis and (3) proportion of cases with a consensus diagnosis of dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic. Benchmarks were based on scores of the core pathologists. Results After phase I, 1/7 pathologists met the benchmark score for all quality criteria, yet three pathologists only marginally failed the agreement with consensus diagnosis (score 68.3%, benchmark 69%). After a group discussion and phase II, 5/6 remaining aspirant panel members qualified with all scores within the benchmark range. Conclusions The Dutch BO review panel now consists of 14 pathologists, who—after structured assessments and group discussions—can be considered homogeneous in their review of biopsies with LGD.