Kumarasinghe, Priyanthi M

AimsThere are no standardized histologic criteria for diagnosing serrated epithelial change (SEC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but two commonly used definitions are currently in use. The first definition (DEF1) is a simpler definition but requires endoscopic correlation. It encompasses all endoscopically invisible or non‐targeted serrated lesions without morphologic evidence of dysplasia that do not meet the diagnostic criteria of sessile serrated lesion (SSL) or traditional serrated adenoma (TSA). In contrast, the second definition (DEF2) incorporates more complex morphologic criteria (i.e., disorganized crypt architecture with some crypts no longer perpendicular or extending down to the muscularis mucosae, irregular serration spanning the entire thickness of the mucosa, and goblet cell‐rich epithelium), but does not necessitate endoscopic correlation. The reproducibility of SEC diagnoses using these definitions among gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists has not yet been evaluated.Methods and resultsSeven GI pathologists independently evaluated 38 GI cases, including 21 digitally scanned biopsy slides and 17 previously published images, demonstrating various types of serrated changes and their morphologic mimics. The diagnostic categories included: (1) SEC, (2) hyperplastic polyp (HP), (3) SSL, (4) TSA, (5) hypermucinous dysplasia (HMD), and (6) no serrated change or dysplasia (NSD). All cases were selected by a single pathologist (WTC) who did not participate in the interobserver study. The pathologists initially assessed each case as if it were endoscopically normal and provided a diagnosis using DEF1. Next, they re‐evaluated each case, this time considering it as a nodular or polypoid lesion, and again made a diagnosis using DEF1. The same process was then repeated for each case but using DEF2. A total of 532 diagnoses were made for each definition (7 pathologists × 38 cases × 2 endoscopic appearances). Fleiss' kappa statistics were used to assess the level of agreement among the seven pathologists. The total number of SEC diagnoses using DEF1 (n = 110 of 532) was more than twice that of DEF2 (n = 50 of 532). Also, the number of SEC diagnoses per pathologist was higher using DEF1 (mean: 16, range: 12–18) compared to DEF2 (mean: 7, range: 0–14). Furthermore, the instances where four or more pathologists agreed on the diagnosis of SEC were more frequent with DEF1 (16 of 38 cases) than with DEF2 (1 of 38 cases). The overall agreement in diagnosing SEC (vs. no SEC) using DEF1 was substantial (k = 0.69, P < 0.001), whereas the agreement using DEF2 was only slight (k = 0.18, P < 0.001). Among potential SEC mimics, there was substantial agreement in diagnosing HP (k = 0.69 using DEF1), SSL (k = 0.68), TSA (k = 1.00), HMD (k = 0.79), and NSD (k = 0.61) (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe diagnosis of SEC using DEF1 is significantly more reproducible than using DEF2. Utilizing DEF1 is also less likely to miss potentially important cases of SEC. Therefore, DEF1 could be adopted to separate SEC from other serrated lesions and morphologic mimics in IBD.

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.