Search

Item does not contain fulltext, Endoscopic resection (ER) is an important diagnostic step in management of patients with early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia. Based on ER specimens, an accurate histological diagnosis can be made, which guides further treatment. Based on depth of tumor invasion, differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, and margin status, the risk of lymph node metastases and local recurrence is judged to be low enough to justify endoscopic management, or high enough to warrant invasive surgical esophagectomy. Adequate assessment of these histological risk factors is therefore of the utmost importance. Aim of this study was to assess pathologist concordance on these histological features on ER specimens and evaluate causes of discrepancy. Of 62 challenging ER cases, one representative H&E slide and matching desmin and endothelial marker were digitalized and independently assessed by 13 dedicated GI pathologists from 8 Dutch BE expert centers, using an online assessment module. For each histological feature, concordance and discordance were calculated. Clinically relevant discordances were observed for all criteria. Grouping depth of invasion categories according to expanded endoscopic treatment criteria (T1a and T1sm1 vs. T1sm2/3), ≥1 pathologist was discrepant in 21% of cases, increasing to 45% when grouping diagnoses according to the traditional T1a versus T1b classification. For differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, and margin status, discordances were substantial with 27%, 42%, and 32% of cases having ≥1 discrepant pathologist, respectively. In conclusion, histological assessment of ER specimens of early BE cancer by dedicated GI pathologists shows significant discordances for all relevant histological features. We present propositions to improve definitions of diagnostic criteria.

Item does not contain fulltext, AIM: To quantify lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and to assess the prognostic value in patients with pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this nationwide, retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they were treated with surgery or endoscopic resection for pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. Primary endpoint was the presence of metastases, lymph node metastases, or distant metastases, in surgical resection specimens or during follow-up. A prediction model to identify risk factors for metastases was developed and internally validated. RESULTS: 248 patients were included. LVI was distributed as follows: no LVI (n = 196; 79.0%), 1 LVI focus (n = 16; 6.5%), 2-3 LVI foci (n = 21; 8.5%) and ≥4 LVI foci (n = 15; 6.0%). Seventy-eight patients had metastases. The risk of metastases was increased for tumors with 2-3 LVI foci [subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) 3.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.10-5.47] and ≥4 LVI foci (SHR 3.81, 95% CI 2.37-6.10). The prediction model demonstrated a good discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.81). CONCLUSION: The risk of metastases is higher when more LVI foci are present. Quantification of LVI could be useful for a more precise risk estimation of metastases. This model needs to be externally validated before implementation into clinical practice.

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

Background: Dysplasia assessment of Barrett’s esophagus biopsies is associated with low observer agreement; guidelines advise expert review. We have developed a web-based review panel for dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus biopsies. Objective: The purpose of this study was to test if 10 gastrointestinal pathologists working at Dutch Barrett’s esophagus expert centres met pre-set benchmark scores for quality criteria. Methods: Ten gastrointestinal pathologists twice assessed 60 digitalized Barrett’s esophagus cases, enriched for dysplasia; then r