Carneiro, Fátima

AimsThere is a lack of published literature on the diagnostic reproducibility of oesophageal squamous dysplasia using a two‐tiered grading system.Methods and resultsWe identified 75 oesophageal biopsies, which were reviewed by 10 international pathologists twice (1500 total observations) with a > 4‐week washout period. Between rounds, a consensus meeting refining diagnostic criteria was held and an atlas was created to provide illustrations. Overall agreement was fair with kappa of 0.35 and 0.32 in round 1 and 2, respectively. Agreement was moderate to fair for negative for dysplasia (ND) (round 1 = 0.41 and round 2 = 0.34) and poor for indefinite for dysplasia (IND) and low‐grade dysplasia (LGD) (kappa <0.2). Agreement for high‐grade dysplasia (HGD) was good in both rounds (round 1 = 0.64; round 2 = 0.61). In round 1, majority diagnosis (MDx, ≥6 of 10 raters agreeing) was seen in 51 (68%) cases with the majority classified as ND (N = 27) or HGD (N = 18). MDx was rarely achieved for LGD (N = 6). In round 2, MDx was seen in 49 (65%) cases (20 ND, 1 IND, 11 LGD and 17 HGD). Of the 40 cases with MDx for both rounds, 39 were concordant (15 HGD, 6 LGD and 18 ND).ConclusionsOverall agreement among pathologists in diagnosing squamous lesions is fair; however, HGD had good agreement. This study fills an important gap in our knowledge of the inter‐rater variability in the diagnosis of oesophageal squamous dysplasia.

AbstractThe WHO Classification of Tumours provides the international standards for the classification and diagnosis of tumours. It enables direct comparisons to be made between different countries. In the new fifth edition, the series has gone digital with the launch of a website as well as a series of books, known widely as the WHO Blue Books. The first volume to be produced is on the classification of Digestive System tumours, replacing the successful 2010 version. It has been rewritten and updated accordingly. This article summarises the major diagnostic innovations that have occurred over the last decade and that have now been incorporated in the classification. As an example, it incorporates the recently proposed classification of neuroendocrine tumours, based on the recognition that neuroendocrine tumours and carcinomas differ substantially in the genetic abnormalities that drive their growth, findings relevant to treatment selection and outcome prediction. Several themes have emerged during the production process. One is the importance of the progression from hyperplasia to dysplasia to carcinoma in the evolution of the malignant process. Advances in imaging techniques and endoscopy have resulted in enhanced access to precancerous lesions in the gastrointestinal and biliary tract, necessitating both changes in classification schema and clinical practice. Diagnosis of tumours is no longer the sole purview of pathologists, and some patients now receive treatment before tissue is obtained, based on clinical, radiological and liquid biopsy results. This makes the classification relevant to many disciplines involved in the care of patients with tumours of the digestive system.