Long, Thomas

Context.— The Goldman criteria are widely used to categorize diagnostic discrepancies in autopsy reports for hospital quality assurance. Despite their adoption, little is known about how consistently they are applied across institutions. Objective.— To evaluate the interrater reliability among academic pathologists applying the Goldman criteria to classify missed diagnoses in autopsy cases. Design.— Thirty autopsy cases from 2 academic hospitals were reviewed by 5 experienced autopsy pathologists. Each reviewer independently assigned Goldman classification scores (class I–IV) to missed diagnoses based on the original 1983 definitions. Consensus was defined as at least 60% agreement (≥3 of 5 raters). Fleiss κ and Gwet AC1 were calculated to assess interrater reliability. Results.— A total of 196 missed diagnoses were identified by at least 1 rater. Only 26% (51 of 196) achieved a consensus Goldman classification, and just 4% (8 of 196) had unanimous classification agreement. Most diagnoses (65%; 127 of 196) were not identified by at least 3 raters. Among consensus classification ratings, 49% (25 of 51) were class IV. Fleiss κ was 0.176 (slight agreement) while Gwet AC1 was 0.390 (fair agreement). Collapsing major (classes I–II) and minor (classes III–IV) categories modestly improved agreement. Conclusions.— Interrater agreement in applying the Goldman criteria is only fair to moderate, suggesting significant subjectivity in their application. As the criteria are used for institutional comparison and quality metrics, efforts to standardize definitions and provide reviewer training are warranted to improve reproducibility and utility.

Abstract Background Noninvasive prenatal screening for common autosomal trisomies, sex chromosome aneuploidies and microdeletions vary by methodology and laboratory practice. The fetal portion of all cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation defines the fetal fraction (FF). The minimum specimen FF levels for reporting results vary between laboratories as well as the screening target (e.g., common trisomies vs select microdeletions). This variability can lead to confusion for both healthcare providers and patients. Methods Participants in the College of American Pathologists Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing 2021-B Exercise provided FF estimates for 3 manufactured samples. Responses to supplemental questions were also collected and analyzed. Results Overall, 72 of 77 participants responded. FF was measured by 66 participants using sequence counts (40), single nucleotide polymorphisms (15), fragment length (24), and Y chromosome sequences (24). Nearly half (48%) used multiple methods. For common trisomies, minimum FFs were none or <1% (n = 7), 1.0% to 3.9% (n = 35), 4.0% to 6.9% (n = 23), and ≥7.0% (n = 1); 4 participants did not measure FF. Challenge-specific FFs were variable with CVs of 13%, 15%, and 36%; the latter rate appears due to that sample’s fetal karyotype of 47,XYY. Comparing adjusted FF results for the 3 samples shows that 85% of participant results were within 20% of the consensus. Conclusions Using multiple methods to estimate FF was common, and cutoff levels for sample suitability varied widely. Within-laboratory FFs were less variable than between laboratories. Current FF estimates from clinical laboratories are not standardized and should be considered laboratory-specific.

AbstractObjectiveDetermine current analytical methods and number of cell‐free (cf) DNA prenatal screening tests performed for common trisomies.MethodsThe College of American Pathologists 2022‐B Noninvasive Prenatal Testing exercise was distributed in December 2022 to 93 participants in 22 countries. Supplemental questions included the number of tests performed in a recent month and the proportion of samples originating outside the United States (US).ResultsEighty‐three participants from three continents returned results; 74 (89%) were suitable for the analyses. Nine manufacturer/platform combinations were identified, most commonly Illumina/Nextseq (55%). The most common methodology was whole genome sequencing (76%). Annualized cfDNA tests were 2.80 million, with Asian, European and North American participants representing 10.6%, 6.5% and 82.9% of tests, respectively. When restricted to US in‐country tests, the annualized rate was 2.18 million, with four of 20 participants testing 79.2%. Among 73 respondents, 63 (86%) were for‐profit, eight (11%) were non‐profit academic or government supported and the remaining two included hospital‐based and private non‐profit. Eighteen (25%) supported relevant academic training.ConclusionIn 2011, screening for common trisomies was based on serum/ultrasound markers with an estimated 2.96 million US pregnancies screened in 131 laboratories. In 2022, cfDNA‐based screening was offered by 20 laboratories testing 2.18 million US pregnancies.

Context.— Organ weights are an essential part of autopsy analysis. Deviations from normal organ weights provide important clues to disease processes. The assessment of normal organ weights depends on reliable reference tables, but most widely available reference tables are based on data that are either decades old or derived from relatively small sample sizes. Objective.— To provide an updated reference table of organ weights based on contemporary sources and a large sample size. Design.— Organ weights from 4197 carefully screened autopsies performed on adults at the Palm Beach County Medical Examiner's Office in West Palm Beach, Florida, and the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Rochester, Minnesota. Results.— Height and body weight data in this study reflect the well-recognized increases in both variables, but most particularly in body weight, seen during the last decades. The study data show a strong positive association between organ weight and body weight for the heart, liver, and spleen. There is a similar but weaker association between body weight and the weight of the lungs and kidneys. Brain weight is independent of body weight but shows a strong negative association with age. Even when controlling for body weight, men's organs are heavier, except for the weight of the liver, which is comparable in men and women. These associations are in agreement with the findings of previous studies. The current study suggests that, for some of the commonly weighed organs, there has been an increase in median organ weight when compared with existing references. Conclusions.— The tables presented here provide an updated reference that should prove useful to autopsy pathologists in the forensic and hospital settings.

Context.— Assessing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drug levels by reliable laboratory assays is necessary in a number of clinical scenarios. Objective.— To evaluate the performance of DOAC-specific assays for various concentrations of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, assess the interlaboratory variability in measurement of these DOACs, and investigate the responsiveness of the routine clotting assays to various concentrations of these oral anticoagulants. Design.— College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey data from 2013 to 2016 were summarized and analyzed. Results.— For dabigatran, the interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) of ecarin chromogenic assay was broad (ranging from 7.5% to 29.1%, 6.3% to 15.5%, and 6.8% to 9.0% for 100-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The CV for diluted thrombin time for dabigatran was better overall (ranging from 11.6% to 17.2%, 9.3% to 12.3, and 7.1% to 11.2% for 100 ng/mL, 200 ng/mL, and 400 ng/mL, respectively). The rivaroxaban-calibrated anti-Xa assay CVs also showed variability (ranging from 11.5% to 22.2%, 7.2% to 10.9%, and 6.4% to 8.1% for 50-ng/mL, 200-ng/mL, and 400-ng/mL targeted drug concentrations, respectively). The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) showed variable dose- and reagent-dependent responsiveness to DOACs: PT was more responsive to rivaroxaban and aPTT to dabigatran. The undiluted thrombin time showed maximum prolongation across all 3 dabigatran concentrations, making it too sensitive for drug-level monitoring, but supporting its use as a qualitative screening assay. Conclusions.— DOAC-specific assays performed reasonably well. While PT and aPTT cannot be used safely to determine DOAC degree of anticoagulation, a normal thrombin time excludes the presence of dabigatran.